Re Alexander and Company

This case concerned a motion before the High Court of Australia for the appointment of a controller of the business of the firm Alexander &Co. The Minister for Trade and Customs had appointed an interim controller, acting under the *Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914*, on the belief that the firm was likely to endeavour to transmit money from Australia to Germany for the benefit of enemy subjects. The firm comprised Eduard Alexander, a German subject resident in Germany, and two Australian residents: Bernhardt Hesslein, a naturalised British subject, and Louis Frank, a German subject.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the standard of evidence required to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable foundation for the Minister's belief that an offence under the *Trading with the Enemy Acts* was likely to be committed, thereby justifying the appointment of a controller. The Court was also required to consider the nature and extent of the powers and duties of such a controller.

Barton J., applying the principle established in *In re Meister Lucius and Bruning (Ltd.)*, held that for the Court to appoint a controller, it was sufficient to have some evidence demonstrating a reasonable basis for the Minister's belief. The Court found that the evidence, particularly the correspondence from Louis Frank, indicated a clear intention to continue communication and potentially transmit funds to Eduard Alexander in Germany, despite advice against such actions. This demonstrated a likelihood of committing the offence of trading with the enemy, which the protective and precautionary jurisdiction of the Act aimed to prevent.

The Court ordered the appointment of Horace Bately Allard as controller of the business of Alexander &Co. The controller was vested with broad powers to manage the firm's assets to ensure no property passed to enemy subjects, with provisions for depositing funds and controlling securities. The controller was also empowered to make allowances for living expenses to the Australian partners and to facilitate the lawful continuation of the firm's business, subject to his control. The costs of all parties were to be paid out of the controlled funds.