Legal Research
Cases
Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board

Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board

Link copied

Case Copied 28 October 1980 88 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ.

UEBERGANG v. AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

(1980) 145 CLR 266

28 October 1980

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of interstate trade and commerce—Wheat—Sale by growers in New South Wales to miller in Queensland—Joint statutory scheme of Commonwealth and States—Acquisition by Board of all wheat grown in Australia—Prohibition of sales—Regulation—Tests for validity of legislation—Whether validity depends on establishment of facts—Whether questions seek an advisory opinion—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92—Wheat Industry Stabilization Act, 1974 (N.S.W.), s. 10 (2)—Wheat Industry Stabilization Act, 1974 (Q.), s. 12 (3).

Decisions

1980, October 28.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
BARWICK C.J. The plaintiffs in this case challenge the propriety of the Court's decision in Clark King &Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board ("Clark King") (1978) 140 CLR 120 . That case was decided by a majority of three Justices in a bench of five Justices. Of the majority, one Justice, Murphy J., took a ground which has never been accepted by any Justice of the Court in any case and which, as I pointed out in my own reasons for judgment in Clark King, is, in my opinion, insupportable on a reading of the Constitution itself. It is inconsistent with every decision of the Privy Council and of this Court upon the meaning and operation of s. 92 of the Constitution: see, in particular, The Commonwealth v. Bank of New South Wales ("the Bank Case") (1949) 79 CLR 497, at p 629; (1950) AC 235, at p 299 . Further, it is notable that no party in the argument of the present case has attempted to support these reasons of my brother Murphy. The views of Murphy J. were not shared by the other Justices forming the majority: nor did Murphy J. support the reasons of those Justices. The case of Clark King was therefore decided, so far as concerns the submissions made in the present case, by two Justices. There is thus no decision of this Court, in the sense of the reasoning of those two Justices, operative as a precedent that the Act now in question is valid in its presently relevant provisions. (at p276)

2. A reference in the present case has been before the Court on an earlier occasion when three questions were reserved for its consideration. Two of those questions were answered by the Court's announcement (1) that the Court would allow argument as to the validity of s. 10 (2) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act, 1974 (N.S.W.) as amended and s. 12 (3) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act, 1974 (Q.) as amended and (2) that the decision in Clark King does not preclude the examination in the instant proceedings of the facts on which either party may claim validity of the relevant statute depends. The further question was not dealt with at that stage. (at p277)

3. Subsequent to that announcement, though prior to 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 Uebergang v Australian Wheat Board 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: [1980] HCA 40
Decision Date: 28 October 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) and Uebergang, a wheat grower. Uebergang sought to recover damages from the AWB for alleged breaches of contract and duty of care in relation to the handling and sale of his wheat. The core of the dispute concerned the AWB's obligations as the sole statutory authority responsible for the marketing and export of wheat in Australia during the relevant period.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the AWB had breached its contractual obligations to Uebergang, and whether it had acted in breach of a duty of care owed to him. Specifically, the court had to determine the nature and extent of the AWB's responsibilities under the relevant legislation and any implied terms in its dealings with growers, and whether its actions in managing the sale and export of Uebergang's wheat met the required legal standards.

The High Court, in its judgment, analysed the statutory framework governing the AWB's operations and the contractual relationship between the Board and wheat growers. The court determined that the AWB's statutory powers and duties did not impose a direct contractual obligation to achieve a specific price for a grower's wheat, nor did they create a duty of care in the manner alleged by Uebergang. The court found that the AWB was required to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence in carrying out its statutory functions, but this did not extend to guaranteeing a particular outcome for individual growers. The court ultimately held that the AWB had not breached its contractual or common law duties to Uebergang.

Orders