Mills v Stokman

In *Mills v Stokman*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the validity of certain regulations made under the *Pastures Protection Act 1934* (NSW). The plaintiffs, pastoralists, challenged the authority of the defendant, a Pastures Protection Board, to enforce these regulations, which imposed restrictions on the movement of sheep. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the regulations were a valid exercise of the power conferred by the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the regulations made by the Pastures Protection Board were *ultra vires* the powers granted to it under the *Pastures Protection Act 1934* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine if the regulations, which prohibited the movement of sheep unless a permit was obtained, constituted a lawful exercise of the Board's statutory authority to prevent the spread of disease, or if they went beyond the scope of the Act's intended purpose and were therefore invalid.

The High Court, in its judgment, reasoned that the power to make regulations under the Act was intended to be used for the specific purpose of disease control. The court found that the regulations in question, by imposing a blanket prohibition on sheep movement without a permit, were not reasonably capable of being seen as directed to that purpose. Instead, the regulations were deemed to be an unreasonable fetter on the rights of pastoralists and an overreach of the Board's delegated authority. The court applied the principle that statutory powers must be exercised within the limits and for the purposes for which they were granted, and that regulations exceeding these bounds are invalid.

Consequently, the High Court held that the regulations were *ultra vires* and therefore invalid. The plaintiffs were successful in their challenge.