Hostels Ltd.-Applicability of State legislation- Price control-Declared 1952-1953. services-Board and lodging-Fixation of maximum charges-Payments by migrants to Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. for accommodationPrices Regulation Act 1948-1951 (Vict.) (No. 5310-No. 5580)-Prices Act 1948-1951 (S.A.) (No. 2 of 1948-No. 23 of 1951)-Prices Regulation Act 1948-1949 (N.S.W.) Nov. 24-26; (No. 26 of 1948-No. 24 of 1949).

From 1949 the Commonwealth Government provided a number of hostels MELBOURNE, throughout the Commonwealth for the accommodation of immigrant families. March 13. One such hostel, situate in Victoria, was erected on land held by the Com- monwealth under a lease. B. and his wife and child lived there continuously from July 1951. All furniture, furnishings, fittings and equipment in the hostel were at all times the property of the Commonwealth. For such accom- modation B. was charged, up to 27th April 1952, £6 13s. Od. per week and later £6 18s. 6d. per week. Up to 27th January 1952, the hostel-and other

89 CLR 230

hostels throughout the Commonwealth-was managed and controlled by the Department of Labour and National Service, but on that date, the management and control was taken over by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd., a company incorporated in September 1951, under the Companies Act 1938 (Vict.). Each of the seven signatories to the company's memorandum and articles of association was a civil servant. The memorandum empowered the company 1 to provide, take over, establish, equip, maintain, conduct, con- trol, manage or supervise" hostels for the accommodation of migrants" and others; and (2) to enter into any arrangement with any Government and to carry out a number of subsidiary objects. It provided that the income of the company should be applied solely towards its objects. Any surplus on a winding-up was to be paid to the Minister for Labour and National Service, who controlled the appointment and resignation and removal of directors, as well as the matter of winding-up. The lease of the hostel was never assigned to the company, nor was any sub-lease to the company executed, nor was any property of the Commonwealth ever transferred to the company. In a contract in writing made on 20th November 1951, between the Com- monwealth and the company it was recited that it was intended that the company should assume responsibility for managing and conducting the

now being managed and conducted by the Commonwealth through the Department of Labour and National Service," and provisions to that end were inserted retaining close contact with and control by the Minister, including, inter alia, provisions (a) not to alter the scale of charges from time to time approved by the Minister for accommodation facilities provided in the hostels; and (b) that nothing in the instrument should be deemed to confer on the company any right, title or interest in any of the real and personal property 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 The Commonwealth v Bogle

Details

AGLC: The Commonwealth v Bogle [1953] HCA 10
Case: [1953] HCA 10
Decision Date: 13 March 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia and Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. (the company) sued Andrew Bogle to recover unpaid amounts for board and lodging provided at a Commonwealth-funded hostel. The dispute arose when Bogle refused to pay increased charges for accommodation. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were: (1) whether Bogle's contractual relationship for accommodation was with the Commonwealth or the company; (2) whether the company was an agent or instrumentality of the Crown, thereby entitled to Crown immunity; and (3) whether the relevant State Prices Regulation Acts and associated orders applied to the charges imposed by the company, rendering the increased charges illegal.

A majority of the High Court (Dixon C.J., Webb, Fullagar, Kitto, and Taylor JJ.) held that at the time the increased charges were imposed, Bogle's contractual relationship was with the company, not the Commonwealth. The majority further found that the company was not an agent or instrumentality of the Crown and thus not entitled to Crown immunities. Consequently, the court determined that the Victorian Prices Regulation Act 1948-1951 and the orders made under it were applicable, making the agreement by Bogle to pay the increased charges illegal. McTiernan and Williams JJ. dissented.

Orders