Just terms " - Price fixed by another committee Grower not heard re fixation Delivery of pineapples by grower pursuant to direction-Voluntary or compulsory Mistake of law or fact-Exaction colore officii-Orders- Validity Compen- Aug. 6.8; 11. sation-Trover-Conversion-DamagesThe Constitution (63 &64 Fict. c. 12), 8. 51 (xxxi.)-Sugar Agreement Act 1940 (No. 21 of 1940) National Security (General) Regulations (S.R. 1939 No. 87-1945 No. 123), regs. 57, 59, 60p. 60G- National Security (Food Control) Regulations (S.R. 1943 No. 165-1945 No. 47), regs. 9, 12-National Security (Prices) Regulations (S.R. 1940 No. 176-1945 No. 113)-Prices Regulation Order No. 1512-Control of Pineapples Orders Nos. 1, 2-Control of Canned Pineapples and Pineapple Juice Order Distri- bution of Food Order No. 2.

Growers of pineapples were directed by orders, and directions made there- under, made under reg. 59 of the National Security (General) Regulations to deliver a prescribed percentage of their pineapples to a specified representative committee as agent for a department of the Commonwealth. Payment for pineapples so delivered was received by the growers from the committee at rates fixed from time to time by another representative committee after due inquiries but in the absence of the growers. The pineapples se delivered were

75 CLR 2

HIGH COURT forwarded by the first-named committee to canners who processed and canned them and paid that committee therefor. Later these orders were revoked and another order was made under reg. 9 of the National Security (Food McCLINTOCK

Control) Regulations which contained provisions substantially similar to those

revoked orders, the prescribed rate of payment being higher. During the currency of this order the higher rate was fixed as the maximum price for pineapples by an order made under the National Security (Prices) Regulations. The Commonwealth obtained from the canners supplies of canned pineapples and pineapple juice for troops in battle areas, and paid the canners for such supplies. A grower who, without/protest, delivered pineapples to the first- named committee in conformity with the orders in the belief that the orders were valid and binding upon him claimed (i) declarations that the orders, and directions thereunder, made under the General Regulations were invalid in that being laws of acquisition of property they did not provide just terms for such acquisition; (ii) damages for the wrongful conversion of the pineapples delivered by him under those orders and directions; and (iii) compensation for the pineapples delivered in pursuance of the order, and directions made thereunder, made under the Food Control Regulations as for goods requisi- tioned. The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the action on the ground that, although the orders and directions made under the General Regulations were laws of acquisition and were invalid because they did not provide just terms. the plaintiff delivered the whole of his pineapples voluntarily and therefore was not entitled either to…

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.

Continue reading McClintock v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: McClintock v The Commonwealth [1947] HCA 39
Case: [1947] HCA 39
Decision Date: 23 October 1947

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Arthur McClintock appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the validity of various National Security Regulations and orders made thereunder, which compelled pineapple growers, including the appellant, to deliver a prescribed percentage of their crops to a committee acting as agent for a Commonwealth department. The appellant sought declarations that these orders were invalid for failing to provide "just terms" for the acquisition of property, damages for conversion, and compensation for goods requisitioned.

The High Court was required to determine whether the orders constituted laws for the acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and if so, whether they provided "just terms" for such acquisition. Further issues included whether the appellant's deliveries of pineapples were voluntary or made under compulsion, and whether he had a valid claim for damages for conversion or compensation for requisitioned goods, particularly in light of payments received and the absence of protest. The Court also considered the scope of section 51(xxxi) and whether it applied to acquisitions by entities other than the Commonwealth itself.

A majority of the High Court (Latham C.J., Starke and McTiernan JJ.) dismissed the appeal. Latham C.J. and McTiernan JJ. reasoned that if the orders were valid, the appellant had been paid correctly, and if they were invalid, he had voluntarily delivered the pineapples under a mistake of law, thus precluding a claim for damages or compensation. Starke J. found the relevant orders to be valid, holding that they did provide "just terms" and that the prices fixed were lawful. Rich and Williams JJ. dissented.

The appeal was dismissed. The majority found that the appellant had either been paid in accordance with valid orders or had voluntarily acted under a mistake of law when delivering his pineapples pursuant to invalid orders, thereby forfeiting any claim for damages or compensation. Regarding claims under the Food Control Regulations, the appellant was found to have accepted payment in full satisfaction, precluding an action for compensation due to the absence of disagreement on the amount.

Orders