H Money Had and Received-Voluntary payment-Money paid under threats-Wheat
harvest scheme of South Australia-Sale of wheat by Wheat Harvest Board- Demand for further payment-Payment under threat to sell no more wheat to ADELAIDE,
purchaser-Action against GovernmentWheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act 1915 Sept. 27, 28,
Further Amendment Act 1917 (S.A.) (No. 1291), sec. 5.
Sec. 5 (1) of the Wheat Harvest (1915-1916) Act 1915 (S.A.) provides that " ' all wheat delivered to the Government for sale by the Government on account of the owners may be sold at such time or times and at such place or places as the Minister may decide and at the best price obtainable at the
Held, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins J. dissenting), that neither that sub-section nor any other provision of the Wheat Harvest Acts 1915 to 1917 imposes on the Government any duty towards persons desiring to buy wheat of which a refusal by the Government to sell wheat to a particular individual is a breach.
Held, also, by the whole Court, that, where one person demands from another money which, as the former knows, the latter is not bound to pay, the fact that payment is made only to avert from the latter some great evil which will, as both parties know, immediately follow if the demand is not complied with, does not make the payment involuntary so as to entitle the latter to recover it.
Hills v. Street, (1828) 2 Moo. &P. 96 Kendal v. Wood, (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 243, and Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. v. Melbourne City Corporation, 1923-1924. (1903) 28 V.L.R. 647: 24 A.L.T. 161, distinguished.
The plaintiff, a miller, bought from the Wheat Harvest Board, which was constituted by Regulations made under the Wheat Harvest Acts 1915-1919 (S.A.), certain parcels of wheat at certain prices per bushel. After the wheat had been delivered and paid for, the Board demanded from the plaintiff, in respect of the wheat sold, payment of a further sum per bushel in addition to the contract price, intimating that unless the sum demanded were paid the Board would not supply the plaintiff with any more wheat. The Board was not, and did not claim to be, legally entitled to make such demand. The plaintiff, who was unable to purchase any wheat except through the Board and who, if the Board had not supplied it, would have been unable to continue to carry on business as a miller, with full knowledge of all the material facts paid, under protest, part of the sum demanded. The plaintiff then brought an action against the Government of South Australia to recover the sum so paid.
Held, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins J. dissenting), that the payment was voluntary and without the abuse of…
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.
Continue reading Smith v William Charlick Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Smith v William Charlick Ltd [1924] HCA 13
Case
[1924] HCA 13
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Smith v William Charlick Ltd involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, William Charlick Ltd, a miller, had purchased wheat from the Wheat Harvest Board. After the wheat had been delivered and paid for according to the contract price, the Board demanded an additional sum per bushel, which it was not legally entitled to. The Board threatened to cease supplying further wheat to William Charlick Ltd if the demand was not met. William Charlick Ltd, being unable to source wheat elsewhere and facing the prospect of being unable to continue its business, paid a portion of the demanded sum under protest. The company then sued the Government of South Australia to recover this payment.
The central legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the Wheat Harvest Acts imposed any duty on the Government towards individuals seeking to purchase wheat, such that a refusal to sell to a particular purchaser would constitute a breach of that duty. Secondly, and more broadly, the court had to determine whether a payment made under threat of significant economic harm, where the payer knows the demand is not legally enforceable, constitutes an involuntary payment that can be recovered.
The High Court, by a majority, held that the Wheat Harvest Acts did not impose any duty on the Government to sell wheat to any particular individual, and therefore, a refusal to sell did not constitute a breach of duty. Furthermore, the Court determined that the payment made by William Charlick Ltd was voluntary. The reasoning was that while the Board's threat to cease future dealings would cause significant harm to the miller, this threat did not involve the infringement of any legal right or the use of any unlawful pressure. The payment was made to induce the Board to enter into future transactions, which it was under no legal obligation to do. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where payments are made under duress or to avert the unlawful seizure of property, finding that the payment was made with full knowledge of all material facts and without the abuse of any legal duty owed by the Board to the plaintiff.
Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was allowed, and the orders made in favour of William Charlick Ltd were set aside.