Master Butchers Limited v G Laughton and Coombs Limited

19 CLR 349

MASTER BUTCHERS LIMITED G. LAUGHTON &COOMBS LIMITED

RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Public Health-Sale of diseased animals-Knowledge that animals are diseased-

Health Act 1898 (S.A.) (61 &62 Vict. No. 711), secs. 106, 109, 111*.

Sec. 109 of the Health Act 1898 (S.A.) provides that " no person shall sell, consign, or expose for sale, or supply for food, any diseased animal." Sec. 106 of the Health Act 1898 pro-

shall (inter alia) supply to any person vides that "all owners, on discovery

the milk of any diseased animal, or that their animals are diseased, shall

allow any person suffering from any give written notice to the Local Board,

infectious disease to milk any cow, and and isolate such animals from all other

continues: " It shall not be a defence to any prosecution under this section defence to any prosecution under this

that the owner did not know that the section that the owner did not know

animal was diseased, or that the person that the animal was diseased unless

was suffering from an infectious disease, he shall also show that it was not

unless he shall also show that it was practicable to discover such disease by

not practicable to discover the fact by the exercise of reasonable diligence." "

the exercise of reasonable diligence." Sec. 111 provides that no person

19 CLR 350

Held, that knowledge that an animal is diseased is necessary to constitute an offence against sec. 109.

Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of South G.LAUGHTON APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

An action was brought in the Local Court of Adelaide by G. Laughton &Coombs Ltd. against the Master Butchers Ltd. to recover £4 16s., being the price of two pigs sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants by auction. The defendants pleaded that the pigs were diseased animals, and, therefore, that the sale was contrary to sec. 109 of the Health Act 1898. The sale was subject to the condition that the pigs were not warranted free from disease. The Special Magistrate found that at the time the pigs were sold they were diseased, and gave judgment for the defendants, but he reserved for the Supreme Court the question whether the sale was contrary to the provisions of sec. 109 and illegal without proof of mens rea.

The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. The defendants now applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal from that decision.

Starke, for the applicants, referred to secs. 106, 109 and 111 of the Health Act 1898.

GRIFFITH C.J. We do not see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the conclusion to which the Supreme Court came. The appli- cation will be refused.

Special leave to appeal refused. Solicitor, H. M. Lee, for E. J. W. Ashton, Adelaide.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the sale of diseased animals. The dispute arose from an action brought by G. Laughton & Coombs Ltd. (plaintiffs) against Master Butchers Ltd. (defendants) to recover the price of two pigs sold at auction. The defendants contended that the sale was illegal and void as it contravened section 109 of the *Health Act 1898* (S.A.), which prohibits the sale of diseased animals.

The central legal issue before the courts was whether knowledge that an animal is diseased is a necessary element to establish an offence under section 109 of the *Health Act 1898*. The defendants argued that the sale was illegal regardless of their knowledge of the pigs' condition, while the plaintiffs implicitly relied on the absence of such knowledge. The Special Magistrate had found the pigs to be diseased at the time of sale and reserved the question of mens rea for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of South Australia had determined that knowledge of the animal's disease was not a prerequisite for an offence under section 109. However, the High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, indicated its agreement with the Supreme Court's ultimate conclusion, which was that knowledge that an animal is diseased is indeed necessary to constitute an offence against section 109. This implies that the Supreme Court's reasoning, as understood by the High Court, likely distinguished between the strict liability provisions in other sections of the Act and the mens rea requirement for section 109.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established