Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead

The Melbourne Steamship Company Ltd (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellants had been charged with refusing to answer questions put to them by the Comptroller-General of Customs under section 15B of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909. The prosecution arose in circumstances where a separate action had already been commenced in the High Court by the Crown against other parties, including allegations of a combination involving the appellants. The questions posed by the Comptroller-General were admitted to have been asked for the purpose of obtaining information for use in this pending litigation.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were: first, whether section 15B of the Act authorised the Comptroller-General to require answers to questions posed for the purpose of obtaining information for use in a pending legal proceeding; and second, whether section 15B authorised the Comptroller-General to require an incorporated company to answer such questions. The appellants contended that the power under section 15B was not intended to be ancillary to existing litigation, and that the questions were avowedly sought for an unauthorised purpose.

Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that once the Attorney-General had formally instituted a prosecution, the power conferred by section 15B was exhausted in relation to the persons alleged to have committed the offence for which the prosecution was brought, and therefore could not be used for the purpose of a pending suit. They reasoned that a public officer seeking to use a power for an unauthorised purpose, as was admitted in this case, could be objected to by the persons against whom it was sought to be used. Furthermore, they held that section 15B did not authorise the Comptroller-General to require an incorporated company to answer questions, as the purpose of the section was to discover facts from the examination of individuals. Isaacs J. dissented on both points, arguing that the power was not exhausted by a pending suit and that the section did apply to corporations.

The High Court reversed the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions. The appellants were therefore justified in their refusal to answer the questions posed by the Comptroller-General.