cane-grower-Request-Sale by cane-grower of his crop of sugar-caneContracting out of Act-Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Acts 1915-1917 (Qd.) (6 Geo. V. SYDNEY,

No. 5 8 Geo. v. No. 18), secs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20. Nov. 8, 9, 25.

By sec. 3 of the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Acts 1915-1917 (Qd.) it is provided that, unless the context otherwise indicates, the term cane-grower" shall mean " any person, company, corporation, firm, or association growing, selling, and supplying sugar-cane to a sugar-mill for the purpose of its being treated and manufactured into sugar." Sec. 6 provides that "a Local Board shall in each year, with respect to the lands and the mill for which they have been constituted, make an award determining the price or prices to be paid and accepted by the owner or owners of the mill and cane- growers, respectively (including all mortgagees, lienees, transferees, assignees, or other persons having any title to or interest in any such mill or lands or sugar-cane), for sugar-cane sold and taken delivery of or which should be taken delivery of by such owners of the mill concerned, and determining all matters relating to such supply of sugar-cane, the handling and treatment thereof by the owner or owners of the mill, and payment therefor."

Held, that a cane-grower does not by the sale to a person other than the owner of the sugar-mill to which his land is assigned of the whole of his sugar crop for a particular season cease to be a cane-grower within the meaning of the Act, and neither a sugar-grower nor any of the persons designated by sec. 6 as included within that term can validly do anything in derogation of the obligation of the grower of the crop for the time being to deliver it to the

28 CLR 331

mill or of the obligation of the mill-owner to pay for it the price fixed under an award and to observe in respect of it the other requirements of the award.

By an award of a Local Board it was provided that Analysis of his cane shall be available to the grower, and shall be delivered to him weekly, together with the dates the analyses were taken."

Held, that a mill-owner did not commit a breach of the award by not deliver- ing to a cane-grower an analysis of his cane where the cane-grower had made no request for the analysis.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland Colonial Sugar Refining Co. V. Stevens Ex parte Colonial Sugar Refining Co., (1920) S.R. (Qd.), 243,

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Before a Police Magistrate at Mackay a complaint was heard whereby Frank James Stevens charged that on or about 7th October 1919 the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd., being the owner 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 Stevens v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stevens v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd [1920] HCA 74
Case: [1920] HCA 74
Decision Date: 25 November 1920

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a complaint by Frank James Stevens, a sugar-cane grower, against the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. (the respondent), the owner of the Homebush Sugar-mill. Stevens alleged that the company had breached an award made under the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Acts 1915-1917 (Qld) by failing to deliver a weekly analysis of his sugar-cane.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether a cane-grower, by entering into an agreement to sell their entire crop for a season to a third party, ceased to be a "cane-grower" within the meaning of the Act, thereby potentially removing themselves and their crop from the operation of the award. Secondly, whether the mill-owner was in breach of the award for failing to deliver the analysis of the cane, notwithstanding that the cane-grower had not requested it.

The Court held that a cane-grower does not cease to be a "cane-grower" under the Act by selling their crop to a third party, nor can such a sale, or any other arrangement, validly derogate from the statutory obligations of the grower to deliver cane to the assigned mill or the mill-owner's obligation to pay the award price and comply with other award requirements. The Court reasoned that the Act was designed to regulate the sugar industry for the public benefit and that private agreements could not override its statutory framework. However, regarding the delivery of the analysis, the Court found that the award provision requiring delivery was not breached because the cane-grower had not requested the analysis. The Court applied the principle that a party undertaking to deliver something is not obligated to seek out the other party in the absence of a request or specific direction.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Supreme Court's decision to quash the conviction. While the Court found that the company had not breached the award by failing to deliver the analysis due to the lack of a request, it did so on that specific ground only, not on the basis that the sale to a third party removed the grower from the award's purview.

Orders