Legal Research
Cases
R v Associated Northern Collieries

R v Associated Northern Collieries

Link copied

Case Copied 22 December 1911 82 min read

Contents

On this page

14 CLR 387

THE KING AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

OF THE COMMONWEALTH

THE ASSOCIATED NORTHERN COLLIERIES

AND OTHERS Trusts and monopolies-Inter-State trade-Contract in restraint of-Combination

in restraint of-Detriment to public-Monopoly-Proof of conspiracy or combination-Penalties-Injunction-Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1910 (No. 9 of 1906), (No. 29 of 1910), secs. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14a, 14c,

(A). COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE. At common law and apart from any statutory provisions-

14 CLR 388

towards one obvious purpose, and they are seen through a continued por- lion of time taking steps that lead to one end, it is for the jury to say whether those persons had not combined together to bring about that end which their conduct appears SO obviously adapted to effectuate.

(4) Once the combination and its purposes are proved, the acts of any party to it in furtherance of those purposes are attributable to all, as being within the scope and in execution of their common agreement. No act which is not done in furtherance of the common purpose comes within that principle of admissibility.

(B.) STATUTORY RULES OF EVIDENCE. Secs. 14c and 14D of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906- 1910 which make certain minutes, records, books, letters, documents, etc., evidence against defendants in proceedings for an offence against Part II. of the Act are procedure provisions and are applicable to the trial of proceedings instituted before the passing of those sections by the legislature in 1910.

The sections referred to do not create any new liability or lessen an old one. They leave the rights and liabilities of the parties exactly where they were; but they lay down rules respecting the mode of proof

The said sections apply to offences originally created under Part II. of the Principal Act of 1906 although material alterations with respect to such offences are made by the Act of 1910, and the sections apply as to the proof to be given as to such original offences as well as to the new offences created by the Act of 1910.

Semble, that sec. 15A of the Act which provides that in any proceeding for an offence against Part II. of the Act, any indictment, etc., shall suffice if the offence is set forth as nearly as may be in the words of the

Sec. 15A is a stringent provision casting the initial burden of proof upon the defendants in certain cases, but nothing more. It still leaves it to the judicial tribunal to determine on recognized principles the issue of guilt or innocence having regard to any evidence that may be adduced. It is not applicable where the affirmative evidence covers the whole ground.

(c). DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRACT AND COMBINATION. The offence under sec. 4 of the Act of making or entering into a con- tract in relation to trade or commerce with other countries or among the States with intent to restrain trade or commerce to the detriment of the public is complete at the moment the contract is formed. The…

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 R v Associated Northern Collieries 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: [1911] HCA 73
Decision Date: 22 December 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an action brought by His Majesty the King and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth against forty defendants. These defendants comprised two main groups: colliery proprietors and their representatives, and shipowners and their managing directors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1910 by entering into contracts and engaging in combinations in restraint of inter-State trade and commerce, and by monopolising or attempting to monopolise trade, all to the detriment of the public. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendants had contravened the Act and injunctions to restrain them from continuing these alleged offences. The defendants generally denied the allegations.

The legal issues before the Court included determining whether the defendants had made or entered into contracts in restraint of trade and commerce with intent to detriment the public, and whether they had been or continued to be members of or engaged in combinations for a similar purpose. The Court was also required to consider whether the defendants had monopolised or conspired to monopolise trade with intent to control the supply or price of commodities to the detriment of the public, and whether certain individuals had aided and abetted these offences. A significant aspect of the case involved the application of statutory rules of evidence, specifically sections 14c and 14D of the Act, and the common law principles governing the admissibility of evidence in cases of alleged conspiracy or combination. The Court also had to ascertain the actual intent of the defendants and assess whether their actions resulted in detriment to the public, considering factors beyond mere price increases.

The Court's reasoning addressed several key legal principles. It affirmed that for an offence under section 4 of the Act, the intent to restrain trade must be real and not merely imputed. The Court emphasised that the statutory test for detriment to the public involves a comprehensive inquiry into the real and substantial effect on the public, considering factors such as price, quality, choice, and supply, rather than relying on narrow grounds or substituting an assessment of reasonableness between parties. The Court also clarified the concept of monopoly under section 7, stating it targets the stifling of effective competition to gain dictatorial power over public needs, not merely an increase in business through legitimate means. Regarding evidence, the Court applied common law principles, holding that once a combination and its purposes are proven, the acts of any party in furtherance of those purposes are attributable to all. It also determined that statutory provisions concerning evidence were procedural and applicable to proceedings instituted before their enactment, without creating new liabilities.

Ultimately, the Court found that the affirmative evidence presented covered the entire ground of complaint, rendering section 15A of the Act unnecessary for its determination. Based on the evidence, the Court held that the defendants had made and entered into a contract and were members of and engaged in a combination with the intent to restrain inter-State trade and commerce in Newcastle coal to the detriment of the public. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants had monopolised and combined or conspired to monopolise this trade, with the intent to control the supply and price of coal to the detriment of the public, in contravention of sections 4 and 7 of the Act. The Court also found that the defendants had aided and abetted each other in the commission of these offences under section 9. Consequently, penalties were inflicted on the individual defendants, and an injunction was granted to restrain the further carrying out of the unlawful conduct.

Orders