Lennon v Gibson and Howes Ltd - [1919] UKPCHCA 2

26 C.L.R.]OF AUSTRALIA.285

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

WILLIAM LENNON (Secretary for Agricul

Appellant

;

ture AND Stock for Queensland) .

Plaintiff,

OIRSON & HOWES LIMITED

Respondents.

Defendants,

UN API'EAL from the high

('OURT.

Sugar-cane—Assessment levied on sugar-cane received at mill—Liability of mill-

I 'rivy

owner in respecl of sugar-cane grown by him—Statute—Interpretation—Applica

CoUNCtl..*

tion of definition—Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act 191.5 {Qd.) (6 Ceo. V.

1919.

No. 5), secs. 11, 20.

May 2.

Sec. II of the Regulation of Sugar Vane Prices Act of 1915 (Qd.) provides that in the Act, “ unless the context otherwise indicates.” the term “ mill ” means “ a sugar-mill to which sugar-cane is sold and supplied for the purpose of being treated and manufactured into sugar ; ” and the term ” cane-grower ” means “ any person, company, corporation, firm, or association growing, soiling, and supplying sugar-cane to a sugar-mill for the purpo.se of its being treated and manufactured into sugar : the term (except for the purpose of being bound by an award) does not include any owner of a mill growing sugar cane and supplying the same to such mill, or selling, and supplying the same to any other mill.” Sec. 20 (3) provides that “ The Ceiitral Board ” (the Central Sugar Cane Prices Boai-d constituted by the Act) ” may make and levy an asscssmeirt of one penny ” (afterwards increased to twopence) ” on every ton of sugar-enne received at a mill .... Such assessment shall be paid by the owner of the milt to the Minister, on the first tlav of every month, upon the actual number of tons of sugar-cane received at the mill during the pre ceding month. Srich assessment shall, however, be borne by the cane-grower for every ton so supplied by such cane-grower. The amount of tlic assessment shall be a debt due from the owner of the mill to the Central Board and

* Present—Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin and Ix>rd

Shaw.

28()

HIGH COURT

Privyrecoverable at the suit of the Minister accordingly, but the owner of the mill

COTTNCII..

may deduct from the price of the sugar-cane each cane-grower’s proportion

1919.of such assessment.”

LeotjorHeld, that in sec. 20 (3) the terms “ mill ” and “ cane-grower ” have not the

V.meaning assigned to them in sec. 3, but have their natural meaning, and that

Gibson

the term “ received ” does not imply a transfer from some other person to

Howes

Ltd.

the owner of the mill.

Held, therefore, that a mill-owner, who treated and manufactured into sugar sugar-cane grown by him on his own plantation and also sugar-cane grown by other persons and sold and supplied by them to the mill-owner for the purpose of being treated and manufactured into sugar, was liable to assessment under sec. 20 in respect of the sugar-cane grown by him.

Decision of the High Court :

Gibson S Howes Ltd. i".

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lennon v Gibson and Howes Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1919] UKPCHCA 2
Decision Date: 2 May 1919

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lennon v Gibson and Howes Ltd involved a dispute over the assessment levied on sugar-cane received at a sugar mill, with William Lennon, the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock for Queensland, suing Gibson and Howes Ltd, the owners of a sugar mill, for non-payment of the assessment. The central legal issue was whether a mill-owner who treats and manufactures sugar-cane grown on his own plantation is liable for the assessment under the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act 1915 (Qd). The Privy Council held that the terms "mill" and "cane-grower" in the Act should be given their natural meanings, and that the term "received" does not imply a transfer from another person to the mill-owner. Consequently, the mill-owner was liable for the assessment on sugar-cane grown by him, as it was received at the mill. The Privy Council reversed the decision of the High Court, reinstating the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which found in favour of the plaintiff. The Privy Council also ordered that the plaintiff recover his costs from the defendant in both the Supreme Court of Queensland and the High Court of Australia, and that there be no costs for the appeal.

Orders