Marine Board of Launceston v The King
[1924] HCA 2
•13 February 1924
142 HIGH COURT
[1924.
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
THE MARINE BOARD OF LAUNCESTON
.
A p p e l l a n t :
P l a in t if f ,
A N D
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
.
R e spo n d e n t .
D e f e n d a n t ,
THE MARINE BOARD OF BURNIE
A p p e l l a n t ;
P l a in t if f ,
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
R e spo n d e n t .
D e f e n d a n t ,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
TASMANIA.
H. C. OF A.
Loans to Public Bodies—Loans by Crown—Rate of interest chargeable—Statute—
1924. Interpretation—Effect of repeal—Local Public TToz-fo Loans Amendment Act 1904 (Tas.) (4 Edw. VII., No. 23), secs. 1, 2—Local Public ITorl-s Loans Amendment
H o b a r t ,
Act 1916 (Tas.) (6 Oeo. V., No. 64), sec. 2.
Feb. 11, 12,
13.By the Local Public Works Loans Amendment Act 1904 (Tas.), as amended by sec. 2 of the Local Public IFoHs Loans Amendment Act 1916 (Tas.), it is
Kno.x C.J.,
Isaacs,
provided in sec. 1 that “ There shall be payable and paid by any public body
Gavan Dufly
and Rich J .7 .to the Treasurer of the State upon any sum or sums of money’ advanced as a
loan to such public body after the commencement of this Act under the Local Public Works Loans Act 1890 interest at such rate, not exceeding seven pounds per centum per annum as the Governor may from time to time fix and deter mine, and the Governor may', in his discretion, from time to time, revise the
33 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
143
rate of interest so fixed, and again fix and determine the same ; ” &c. : and H . C. o f A.
in sec. 2 that “ The interest to be so paid by the public body may from time
1924.
to time be fixed and determined by the Governor at such a rate as to only '—>—'
include and cover (i.) Interest at the rate for the time being payable by the ^-tniNE
State; &c.
l -̂ttncbs-
Held, that the words “ interest at the rate for the time being payable by the
State ” meant interest at the rate for the time being payable by the State
v,
on the money raised by the State and advanced to the particular public body T h e K in g .
in pursuance of the Act.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Tasmania reversed.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
On a supplication brought by the Marine Board of Launceston to His Majesty the King for the recovery of £12,580 6s. 4d., by consent of the parties a case, which was substantially as follows, was stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court:—
1. The plaintiff at all material times was and is a Marine Board duly constituted as such under the Marine Boards Act 1889 (Tas.), and the existence whereof as such is continued by the Marine Act 1921 (Tas.).
2. By the Tamar Inifrovement Act 1912—hereinafter called “ the said Act ”—as amended by the Tamar Improvement {Grant-in-Aid) Act 1915 (Tas.), the plaintiff was authorized to borrow and the Gtovernoi was authorized to grant, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Public Works Loans Act 1890 (Tas.) as a loan to the plaintiff for the purpose of carrying out certain works authorized by the said Act out of money to be provided by Parliament for the purpose, any sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of £360,000; and all conditions entithng the plaintiff to borrow as aforesaid were duly fulfilled.
3. Between 29th January 1913 and 30th June 1916 the plaintiff has borrowed from the Governor, who has lent to the plaintiff under the authority of the said Act, various sums amounting in the whole to the sum of £122,421; and between 1st Jidy 1916 and 30th June 1921 the plaintiff has borrowed from the Governor, who has lent to the plaintiff, under the authority of the said Act, various .sums amounting in the whole to £101,503 16s. 8d., the various amounts and the dates of such borrowing being shown in the first
schedule hereto.
’
HIGH COURT
[1924.
H.C. OF A. 4 Upon demands made fi om time to time from His Majesty’s
| 1924. Treasurer for Tasmania for the time being—hereinafter called “ the |
M a r in e Treasurer ”—and on behalf of His Majesty the King the plaintiff
^°^NCEs-
between 1st July 1916 and 2nd September 1921 paid to the
OF
TON AND
B u r n ieTreasurer, who has received the same on behalf of His Majesty the
V. King, sums of money amounting in the whole to the sum of £58,840 Is.
T h e K in g .
as and by way of interest upon the said sums of £122,421 and £101,503 16s. 8d. (portion of such interest is by law to be appro priated by the Treasurer as a sinking fund under the provisions of the Local Public Works Loans Act 1890 and the amendments thereof, and another portion thereof is under the like provisions to be retained by the Treasurer and form part of the Consohdated Revenue of Tasmania, and the balance is in respect of such loan). The Treasurer on behalf of His Majesty the King fixed the rate of interest for each half-year to correspond with the rate of interest which the Treasurer in such half-year paid upon or in respect of moneys borrowed by him by means of local inscribed stock for and on behalf of the State of Tasmania during such half-year, and contends that such is the ju’oper method of charging interest on the said loans under the provisions of the said Local Public TToris Loans Act 1890 and its amendments.
4a . Upon notification that in consequence of an apphcation by
the plaintiff for an advance such advance had been approved by the Governor in Council, the rate of interest to be charged upon such advance was generally mentioned in such notification and the plain tiff was therein notified that the rate of interest was subject to revision from time to time in accordance vith the profusions of the Loans Acts and the plaintiff accepted such loans.
5. It is contended by the plaintiff, who protested by its Master Warden against the rate of interest so charged, that the rate of interest properly so chargeable under the provisions of the said Local Public Works Loans Act 1890 and the amendments thereof on such loans each year is the average rate of interest for the time being actually paid by the Treasurer on all moneys borrowed by him for the State of Tasmania ; and on behalf of His Majesty the King it is contended that the rate of interest chargeable and charged under the said Acts on such loans each half-year is the average rate of
33 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
145
iaterest which the said Treasurer in such half-year paid upon or in H . C. o f A.
respect of moneys borrowed by him by means of local inscribed stock
̂
for and on behalf of the said State during such half-year.
Ma r in e
6. The plaintiff also claims that on some items the Treasurer has of *̂â
ces-
T O N A N D
been paid a higher rate of interest than 7 per cent, and that the
B u r n ie
V.
excess of interest paid above 7 per cent should be adjusted. On
T h e K in g .
behalf of His Majesty the King it is contended that the charge of
iaterest above 7 per cent is correctly made.
The question for the opinion of the Court is :—
Whether the rate of interest chargeable to the plaintiff on such loans as aforesaid is, as contended for by the plaintiff, the average rate of interest for the time being actually paid by the Treasurer on all moneys borrowed by him for the State of Tasmania; or whether such rate is, as contended for on behalf of His Majesty the King, as hereinbefore set forth.
If the Court shall be of opinion in the affirmative upon the plain tiff’s said contention, then judgment shall be entered for the ])laintiff for such amount as shall be determined in such manner as the Court shall direct and costs of suit.
If the Court shall be of opinion in the negative upon the plain tiff’s said contention then, judgment of nol. pros, with costs of defence shall be entered up for His Majesty the King.
The dates and the amounts of the borrowings set out in the schedule referred to in par. 3 were as follows:—In 1916, 25th October £5,000 ; in 1917, 4th January £2,000, 14th February £4,000, 7th March £5,000, 11th April £4,000, 21st May £4,000, 11th July £1,000, 14th August £2,000, 6th November £2,000 ; in 1918, 22nd January £3,000, 5th March £3,500, 2nd May £2,000, 1st July £5,000, 3rd October £5,000; in 1919, 27th June £3,000, 22nd August £2,500, 30th October £3,000; in 1920, 11th February £3,000, 19th July £209 11s. 8d., 23rd July £20,969 5s., 12th October £3,000, 15th December £5,000; and in 1921, 10th February £8,200, 25th April £5,125.
On a similar sujiplication brought by the Marine Board of Burnie for the recovery of £13,568 Is. 2d., by consent of the jiarties a case.
146 HIGH COURT
[1924.
H. C. OF A. -̂ vhich was substantially as follows, was stated for the opinion of
the Supreme Court;—
M a b in e]. The plaintiff at all material times was and now is a Marine Board
oF îiAiScBs- duly constituted as such and a body corporate by or under the
TON AND
B u r n ie
Marine Boards Act 1889, and the existence whereof as such is con
V.
tinued by the Marine Act 1921.
T h e K in g .
2. By the Marine Board of Burnie and Table Cape Loan Act 1910 (Tas.) and the Marine Board of Burnie and Table Cape Loan Act 1919 (Tas.)—hereinafter called “ the authorizing Acts ”—the plaintiff, then known as the Marine Board of Burnie and Table Cape, was authorized to borrow and the Governor was authorized to grant, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Public TToriiS Loans Act 1890 and its amendments—hereinafter called “ the Loans Acts” —except as by authorizing Act varied (such variation not being material to the plaintiff’s claim) as loans to the plaintiff for the pur pose of defraying the cost of certain works therein mentioned, certain sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of £120,000, the sum of £80,000 and the sum of £20,000 respectively.
3. On 23rd June 1920 the plaintiff had borrowed from the Governor,
who lent to the plaintiff, under the authorizing Acts, various sums amounting in the whole to the sum of £220,000. As each of such sums was lent by the Governor to the plaintiff notification ŵ as made to the plaintiff by His Majestv’s Treasurer for the time being for Tasmania (hereinafter called the Treasurer) as to the rate of interest for the time being payable thereon, and the plaintiff was also informed that such rate would be subject to revision from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Loans Acts, and the plaintiff accepted each such loan.
4. LTpon demands made from time to time from the Treasurer on behalf of His Majesty the King the plaintiff has between 1st January 1917 and 30th June 1922 (both dates inclusive) paid to the Treasurer, who has received the same on behalf of His Majesty the King, sums of money amounting in the whole to the sum of £55,945 14s. lid . as and by way of interest upon the said sums of monev so borrowed as aforesaid, of which interest under the provisions of the Loans Acts portion is to be ajipropriated by the Treasurer as a sinking fund and another portion is to be retained by the Treasurer and form part
33 C.L.R.]
OF AUSTRALIA.
of the Consolidated Revenue, and the balance is in respect of the
C. o f a .
said loans.
The Treasurer on behalf of His Majesty the King fixed
the rate of interest for each half-year to correspond with the rate
Ma r in e
of interest which the Treasurer in such half-year paid upon or in of^ aĉ ĉes-
TON AND
respect of moneys borrowed by him by means of local inscribed
B u r n ie
i\
stock for and on behalf of the State of Tasmania during such half-
T h e K in g .
year, and contends that such is the proper method under the pro-
------
visions of the Loans Acts of charging interest on the said moneys so borrowed as aforesaid by the plaintiff and is in accordance with the conditions under which such moneys were so loaned to the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff contends that the rate of interest properly charge
able under the said Loans Acts for and in respect of each such half year upon the last-mentioned moneys is the average rate of interest for the time being payable and paid by the Treasurer on all moneys borrowed by him for the State of Tasmania on behalf of His Majesty the King up to that time and then not repaid by the Treasurer, and that the rate of interest chargeable under the said Loans Acts on the said moneys so borrowed as aforesaid is limited (including the portion to be appropriated by the Treasurer as a sinking fund and the portion to be retained by the Treasurer as aforesaid) to seven pounds per centum per annum.
The questions for the opinion of the Court are ;—
(1) Is the rate of interest chargeable to the plaintiff on such moneys as aforesaid limited as aforesaid to seven pounds per centum per annum ?
(2) Is the rate of interest chargeable to the plaintiff on such moneys as aforesaid in respect of each such half-year the average rate of interest for the time being payable by the Treasurer upon all moneys borrowed by him for the State of Tasmania on behalf of His Majesty the King; and, if yea, by or in reference to what date or dates dming such half year is such average rate to be fixed ?
If the Court shall be of opinion in the affirmative as to either of the said questions numbered 1 and 2, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff for such amount as shall be determined in such manner as the Court shall direct and costs of suit.
148 HIGH COURT
[1924.
| H. | C. OF A. If the Court shall be of opinion in the negative as to both of the | |
| ||
|
B o a u d s
OF
L a u n c e s
t o n AND
B u r n ieIn each case the Full Court by a majority {Nichols C.J. and
V. Crisp J., Ewing J. dissenting) gave judgment in favour of the Crown
T h e K in g .
except so far as interest had been charged at a rate of over seven pounds per centum, in which case they gave judgment in favour of the suppliant.
The suppliant in each case now appealed to the High Court, and
the appeals were heard together.
Waterhouse and Keating, for the Marine Board of Launceston.
Waterhouse and Edtvards, for the Marine Board of Burnie.
L. E. Chambers S.-G. for Tasmania and Sir Elliot Leivis, for the
respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
Feb. 1.3.
The following written judgments were dehvered :—
K n o x C.J. a n d G avan D u f f y J. The question for decision in
these cases turns on the construction of the Local Public TTorA-s Loans Amendment Act of 1904 (4 Edw. VII. No. 23) as amended by the Act of 1916 (6 Geo. V. No. 64). Incorporating the amendments made by the later Act, secs. 1 and 2 read as follows, namely:— Sec. 1 : “ There shall be payable and paid by any public body to the Treasurer of the State upon any sum or sums of money advanced as a loan to such public body after the commencement of this Act under the ZocaZ Public Worhs L.oans Act 1890 interest at such rate, not exceeding seven pounds per centum per annum as the Governor may from time to time fix and determine, and the Gov'ernor may, in his discretion, from time to time, revise the rate of interest so fixed, and again fix and determine the same; ” &c. Sec. 2 ; “ The interest to be so paid by the public body may from time to time be fixed and
33 C.L.K.J OF AUSTRALIA.
149
determined by the Governor at such a rate as to only include and 4'
cover (i.) Interest at the rate for the time being payable by the
State and ( i i . ) A sum of money equal to one pound per centum per
Ma b in e
annum on any such loan as aforesaid, and such sum shall be set apart of^ wnces-
by the said Treasurer as a sinking fund until the Auditor-General
shall certify that such loan has been completely liquidated ; and (in.)
X H E
lilN 'G *
A sum of money equal to ten shillings per centum per annum on
------
any such loan as aforesaid to be retained by the Treasurer, and form uavanSDuffy j .
part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,”
The appellant contended that the “ rate for the time being' pay able by the State ” mentioned in sub-sec. i. of sec. 2 meant the average rate of interest for the time being actually paid by the Treasurer on all moneys borrowed by him for the State of Tasmania. The respon dent contended that the rate of interest for the time being was the average rate of interest which the Treasurer in that half-year paifi upon moneys borrowed by him by means of local inscribed stock during such half-year. In our opinion neither contention is correct. Reading the section as amended without regard to the steps by which it reached its present form, we think it is reasonably clear
that the rate of interest referred to in sub-sec. I. is the rate payable by the State on the money borrowed by it and advanced to the jmblic body. The only subject matter dealt with by the Acts of 1904 and 1916 is the interest to be paid by a public body on sums advanced to it as a loan under the Local Public Works Loans Act of 1890. A loan to a public body under that Act could only be made out of money raised by the Treasurer by the issue of debentures or other Government securities, on the amount of which interest would necessarily be payable by the Government. Having regard to this fact and to the fact that the Acts of 1904 and 1916 deal solely with interest on loans made to public bodies under the Act of 1890, we feel no doubt that the rate of interest referred to in sub-sec. i. of sec. 2 of the Act of 1904 as amended is the rate payable by the Government on the money raised for the purpose of making the adv’nnce in respect of which the public bodv is liable to pay intei’c.st. The result of thus construing the section is that the rate of interest to be fixed by the Governor is limited in two respects; (1) it may not exceed seven pounds per centum per annum in any event, and (2) it
150 HIGH COURT
[1924.
H. C. OF A. can be no greater than the rate payable for the time being by the
Government on the money borrowed by it and advanced to the pubhc
M a e in e body together with one pound per centum per annum as a contri-
ofÎ âunces- bution to a sinking fund and ten shillings per centum per annum
TON AND apparently provided to cover costs of management and adminis
B u r n ie
V.
tration.
It was argued by both parties that the Court was precluded
T h e K in g .
from adopting this construction of the section by the manner in which
Ga\°an̂ Duffy J. Ibe Act of 1904 was altered by the Act of 1916.
In the Act of 1904,
sec. 2, so far as relevant, was in the following words, namely ; “ The interest to be paid by the public body shall be fixed and determined at such a rate as to only include and cover (i.) The interest from time to time payable by the State in respect of the moneys raised from time to time for the purposes of the loan; and (ii.) A sum of money equal to one pound per centum per annum on any such -loan as aforesaid, and such sum shall be set apart by the said Treasurer as a sinking fund until the Auditor-General shall certify that such loan has been completely liquidated ; and (iii.) A sum of money equal to ten shillings per centum per annum on any such loan as aforesaid to be retained by the Treasurer, and form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.” By the Act of 1916 the pro visions of this section down to and including the word “ and ” at the end of sub-sec. i. were struck out and the following words sub stituted : “ The interest to be so paid by the pubhc body may from time to time be fixed and determined by the Governor at such a rate as to only include and cover (i.) Interest at the rate for the time being payable by the S tate; and ”.
It was said that this alteration indicated the intention of Parha- ment that the rate of interest payable by the State in respect of the money raised for the purposes of the loan should no longer be a factor in the determination by the Governor of the rate of interest payable by the public body ; and this view seems to have foimd favour with the majority of the learned Judges in the Supreme Court. But, in our opinion, the alteration made discloses no such intention on the part of Parliament.
The objects of the amending Act of 1916 appear to have been (i.) to raise the maximum rate of interest chargeable from six pounds to seven jiounds per centum per annum ; and (ii.) to confer on the
33 C.L.R.l
OF AUSTRALIA.
Governor power to revise from time to time the rate of interest which
C. o f A.
he had fixed. The alteration in the wording of sec. 2 appears to us to
'
be due to an attempt by the draftsman to improve upon the drafting
Ma r in e
of sec. 2 of the Act of 1904.
The expression in sub-sec. i. of that of^ aî ces-
section “ the interest from time to time payable by the State ” is
clearly inaccurate, and does not conform to the accurate phrasing of
r.
T h e K in g .
sub-secs. I I . and iii., ‘ a sum of money equal to ” &c. Apparently
-----
the draftsman of the Act of 1916 sought to remedy this defect by oi\°an*'rhiffy j.
bringing the frame of sub-sec. i. into line with sub-secs. ii. and
III . In doing this he dropped out the words “ in respect of the
moneys raised from time to time for the purposes of the loan,” probably because he regarded them as superfluous: but. howei'er this may be, the omission of these words in the amending Act is not, in our opinion, sufficient to warrant the inference that Parlia ment intended to abandon as a factor or standard in fixing the rate of interest payable by a public body, the rate of interest payable by the Government on the money raised for the purpose of the loan. For these reasons we are of opinion that the appeals should be allowed, and that both cases should be remitted to the Supreme Court with a declaration in each case that, in the opinion of this Court, the rate of interest mentioned in sub-sec. i. of sec. 2 of the L ocmI Public lUojfe Loans Act 1904 as amended by the Act of 1916 is the rate of interest for the time being payable by the State on the money raised by the State and advanced to the appellant in pursuance of the Ijocnl Public Loans Works Act 1890.
The respondent should pay the cost of the appeal and the costs
in the Supreme Court in each case.
I saacs and R ich JJ. These two appeals are identical in question
and result. They both depend on the true construction of a few words in the Act No. 23 of 1904 introduced into it by the Act No. 64 of 1916, namely, “ interest at the rate for the time being payable by the State.” We must confess that we have not been able to enter tain any doubt whatever as to the meaning of those words.
When the relevant statutes are considered as a whole and their successive provisions are read with a view to give to them what, in another department of law, is called “ business efficacy,” the
152 HIGH COURT
[1924.
H. C. OF A. intention of the Legislature seems to us reasonably plain. Tf the
Act No. 23 of 1904 had been originally framed as it now stands, it
M .V K IN Ecould scarcely have been doubted that the words we have quoted
0 F̂ ATOCE.s- would refer exclusively to the moneys raised by the State for the
TON AND
purposes of the loan to the public body. This would be clear from
B u r n ie
V.
the ordinarv force of the language employed.
Sec. 2, by its opening
T h e K in g .
words, “ The interest to be so paid by the public body,” throws us
Isaacs J.
Kich J.back to sec. I in order to see what is meant by the phrase " to be
so paid.” Sec. 1 says : “ There shall be payable and paid by any public body to the Treasurer of the State upon any sum or sums of money advanced as a loan to such public body after the commence ment of this Act under the Local Public Works Loans Act 1890 interest at such rate,” &c. The words “ upon any sum or sums of money advanced as a loan to such public body ” are thus an essential portion of the circumstances involved in the expression “ to be so paid by the public body ” in sec. 2. In other words, they are naturally an essential constituent of the subject matter dealt wdth by
par. I. of sec. 2, that is, by the words “ Interest at the rate for the time being payable by the State.” Other sums of money borrowed by the State at other times, and used for other purposes, by author ities other than the given “ public body ” would obviously be elements quite foreign to the whole scheme of legislation we are dealing with. If, then, the Act No. 23 had been originally passed in its present form, the words under construction would have been reasonably capable of but one reference, namely, to the moneys previously indicated in sec. 1.
But, from the fact that par. r. of sec. 2, as passed in 1916, and already quoted, replaced par. i. of sec. 2 as passed in 1904, it has been assumed as a postulate by everyone concerned that the Legislature deliberately departed from the original basis, namely, the “ moneys raised from time to time for the purposes of the loan,” and therefore that that basis must be excluded whatever else may happen. True, no express substitution of any other basis was made, which of itself would be strange if so distinct an intention were entertained. Nor is there any cine to an implication of any other basis which could be accepted as reasonable. According to the argument, Parhament has left its language so vague and defective that, if not insensible,
33 C.L.R.] OF AI STKALIA.
153
it is incapable of any interpretation except by applying considerations
C. o f A.
appropriate only to a legislature.
We do not agree with that argu
ment. We think the language is sufficiently clear and that the primary assumption of legislative intention to abandon the of^̂ al̂ ces-
M a r in e
TON AND
original basis cannot be maintained. It has arisen from an
B u k n ie
V.
incomplete review of the amendments made in 1916, and the
T h e K in g .
financial importance of the matter pressed upon us by the earnest
Isaacs
J .
arguments of learned counsel on both sides induces us to state with
Rich J.
some elaboration the reasoning by which we are led to our
conclusions.
Each of the parties has suggested a construction which is unsup ported by any express legislative language and is opposed to the general nature of the scheme, the dominant purpose of the Legis lature of 1916 and the inherent justice of the case. To impose upon the public body the burden of other undertakings with which it is entirely unconnected, or to relieve it of its own proper burden at the expense of the general public, is transparently open to the observations just made. But that would be equally the effect of the suggestion of either of the parties, although the actual sugges tions differ. Let us place ourselves for a moment in the position of the Tasmanian Parliament in 1916, immediately before the pass ing of the amending Act. We need not go further back than the Act of 1904. By sec. 1 of that statute, part of which has been quoted, the maximum interest payable by the public body was 6 per cent, but the rate not exceeding 6 per cent had to be fixed by the Governor “ from time to time,” and when so fixed that interest was charge able upon the revenues of the public body. “ From time to time ” there meant as “ the sums of money ” were advanced, and, once the rate as to any given sum was “ fixed and determined,” it was inalter able, whatever new arrangements the State might make as between the lenders and itself. By sec. 2 the first element which the Governor was required to take into his consideration when the rate was “ fixed and determined ” was thus expressed : “ The interest from time to time payable by the State in respect of the moneys raised from time to time for the purposes of the loan.” The words “ from time to time ” there occur twice. Reading the paragraph with sec. 1, there can be little doubt that the words “ from time to time ” there meant
HIGH COURT
11924.
H. C. OF A. as the moneys were borrowed, and “ the interest from time to time
payable by the State ” meant the interest payable at the time the
M a r in e
money was raised. There was no power to revise, and the original
B o a r d s
fixation and determination could not .have reference to future
OF L a u n c e s
| t o n AND | B u r n ie | fluctuations in the “ interest . . . payable by the State.” |
V. That was a fixed quantity ascertainable once and for all.
T h e K in g .
Now, in 1916, when circumstances led the Parliament to amend the
Isaacs J.
Rich J.law, it found it necessary to raise the maximum to 7 per cent, and
it also clearly provided for possible fluctuations in its ovm liability in respect of the money it had borrowed or might borrow for public bodies. This it did by giving the discretionary power of revision from time to time, when, if exercised, the rate might again be “ fixed and determined.” That is the dominant purpose of the legislation of 1916. But here arises the important consideration. If par. i. of sec. 2 had remained unaltered, the new revisionary power in sec. 1 would have been a dead letter, because the “ interest from time to time ” would have continued to mean what it had previously meant, or at least that might reasonably have been the case. The Parliament carefully guarded against this, by altering the language to read “ interest at the rate for the time being payable by the State.” The essence of the change is in the words “ for the time being,” which brings the “ interest ” which is to be ascertained down to the moment of the “ revision,” if revision is entered upon, and allows full play to the dominant purpose of the Act. There is no express mention of the moneys raised for the purposes of the loan; but there is no express exclusion of them and no express substitution of any other moneys. There is stdl a natural and even necessary reference to the “ sum or sums of money advanced ” as found in sec. 1. The revision is as to the interest on those moneys, and those only, and the words “ so paid ” in the governing words of sec. 2 lead directly back to those moneys, and those moneys only. We, therefore, unhesitatingly hold that the Act of 1904 as now amended should receive the natural construction of its own language unaffected by the assumed abandonment of the original basis of monev bor rowed for the purposes of the scheme.
Our opinion is that par. i. of sec. 2, as enacted in 1916, requires the interest payable by the public body to the State to be calculated
33 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
155
or otherwise ascertained at the rate, not exceeding 7 per cent, which
C. o f A.
at the time of fixing and determining it, whether initially or on 1924.
revision, is the rate that the State under its then existing obligation
M a r in e
is bound by law to pay in respect of the moneys it has borrowed of^*^^cbs-
TON AND
and actually lent to the public body.
B u r n ie
V.
In each case order as stated in the judgment of
T h e K in g .
Knox C.J. and, Gavan Dujfy J .
Solicitors for the appellants, Ritchie & Parker Alfred Green <& Co.,
Launceston, by Simmons, Wolfhagen, Simmons & Watch ; Crisp
Edwards, Burnie, by Griffiths, Crisp & Baker.
SoUcitor for the respondent, A. Banks Smith, Crown Solicitor for
Tasmania.
B. L.
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
MONARD .
A p p e l l a n t
;
C '
MPI-AINANT,
H. M. LEGGO & COMPANY LIMITED
R
e s p o n d e n t .
D e pe n d a n t ,
ON APPEAL PROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF
VICTORIA.
H. C. OF A.
Industrial Arbitration—Agreement between parties to industrial dispute—Binding
1923.
effect of agreement—Extended period of operation—Rights of members of organiza
tion under agreement made with organization — One aiuard •— One dispute — M e l b o u r n e ,
Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1921 {No. 13 o / 1904—
M ay 9, 10;
No. 29 0/1921), secs. 24, 28.
Nov. 8.
Held, that it foUows as a consequence of the provision of sec. 24 (1) of the
Knox C.J.,
Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1921, which gives to an
Isaacs. Higgins,
Rich and
agreement between parties to an industrial dispute the effect of an award,
Starke JJ.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
0
0
0