Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (No 4) - [1953] HCA 87

88 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

529

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

NELUXGALOO PROPRIETARY LIMITED .

P l a in t if f -

R e s p o n d e n t

;

AND

THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS

D e f e n d ANTS- A p p l ic a n t s .

[No. 4.]

Constitutional Law [Cth.)— Question as to limits inter se of constitutional power of

H. C. OF A.

Commonwealth and States— Wheat—Compulsory acquisition hy Commonwealth

1953.

—Compensation to growers—Payment— Commonwealth regulations—Amount—

Duty of Commonwealth and Australian Wheat Board—Action brought in State

Sydney,

court—Removal into High Court—Inter se question—“ Arisen ”—The ConstituAug.

17 ;

tion (6.3 (fe 64 Viet. c. 12 ), s. 51 (xxxi.)— Judiciary Act 1903-1950 [No. 6 of Dec.

1903—No. 80 of 1950), ss. 40, 40a —National Security [Wheat Acquisition)

Dixon C..I.,

William,s,

Regulations (1939 S.R. No. 96—1945 S.R. No. 9).

Webb,

Fullagar and

Kitto JJ.

In an action brought by N. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the Commonwealth, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the Australian Wheat Board, N. claimed for the value of wheat delivered to the board for two cereal seasons in respect of each of which N. declared in two counts containing alternative causes of action, one set of counts being based on reg. 14 of the National Security (Wheat Acquisition) Regulations and the other set being based on a duty alleged to be upon the defendants as to the disposal of the wheat forming the pool in which N.’s wheat of the cereal year was comprised. Each of the counts based on reg. 14 included, inter alia, an allegation that the property in the wheat vested in the Common wealth by force of the regulations ; that N. duly delivered the wheat to, and it was duly received and accepted by, the board; and that N. was entitled to be paid by the defendants compensation in accordance with reg. 14 but the defendants had not done so. The other set of counts, alternative counts, on the basis that the ascertainment of the recompense to the owner of wheat delivered to the board was governed by reg. 19 and that his compensation consisted of a distributable share in the proceeds of a pool, alleged that a duty rested on the defendants to obtain for and pay to the credit of the pool accounts

[E ditor’s Note.—Regulations 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are printed in the

report of earlier proceedings between the same parties :—see Nelungaloo

Pty. Ltd. V. The Commonwealth (1950) 81 C.L.R. 144, at pp. 146-148.]

VOL. L X X X V I I I . —

530 HIGH COURT

[1953.

H.C. OF A. a sum which represented the fair, just and reasonable value of the wheat.

1953.A breach of that duty was alleged and it was said that for that reason the defendants wore unable to pay…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (No 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1953] HCA 87
Decision Date: 8 December 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Nelungaloo Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (No 4)*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Nelungalaloo Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia concerning the compulsory acquisition of wheat.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Commonwealth had the constitutional power to compulsorily acquire wheat owned by a private company, Nelungaloo Pty Ltd, for the purpose of controlling the marketing and distribution of wheat. This involved an examination of the scope of the Commonwealth's legislative powers, particularly in relation to trade and commerce, and the extent to which such powers could be exercised to acquire private property.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the *Constitution* and relevant legislation. It was held that the Commonwealth's power to acquire property for the purposes of the Commonwealth, as outlined in section 51(xxxi) of the *Constitution*, was engaged. However, the Court also considered whether the acquisition was for a purpose authorised by the Commonwealth's legislative powers, such as the regulation of interstate and overseas trade and commerce. The principles of constitutional validity and the limits of executive power were central to the determination.

The Court ultimately found that the compulsory acquisition of the wheat by the Commonwealth was constitutionally valid.

Orders