Mayor &c. of the City of Melbourne v Attorney-General (Vic)

The Mayor and Councillors of the City of Melbourne (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the Electric Light and Power Act (Vic) (No. 1413). The dispute arose from the appellants' imposition of charges for the supply of electricity, specifically relating to whether these charges constituted an unlawful preference. The Attorney-General for Victoria (the respondent) brought the action, alleging that the appellants had contravened the provisions of the Act.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellants, in supplying electricity, had given an unlawful preference to certain consumers over others, and whether the charging schemes implemented by the appellants were consistent with the requirements of the Electric Light and Power Act. Specifically, the court had to consider the validity of offering alternative rates, including a "flat rate" and a "maximum demand rate," and whether the option given to consumers to choose between these rates constituted a breach of the Act's provisions against preference.

The High Court examined sections 13, 38, 39, and 52 of the Electric Light and Power Act. The court reasoned that the Act contemplated a uniform charge for the supply of electricity, but allowed for different methods of calculating that charge based on the consumer's usage. The provision of alternative rates, where consumers could elect the most advantageous option for their circumstances, was held not to constitute an unlawful preference. The court found that the appellants had acted within their statutory powers by offering these choices, as the underlying principle was that all consumers were subject to the same charging framework, even if the final amount payable varied according to their chosen method of calculation and actual consumption.