Willmore v Commonwealth

In the High Court of Australia, George Malcolm Willmore and Reginald Nockolds Randell, who conducted a real estate agency, brought an action against the Commonwealth, the Prices Commissioner, and the Deputy Prices Commissioner for Victoria. The plaintiffs sought declarations that a notice issued by the Deputy Prices Commissioner, fixing the maximum commission rates for their real estate sales, was void. This notice purported to be issued under paragraph 8 of Prices Regulation Order No. 1015, which itself was made pursuant to regulation 23(2)(b)(i) of the National Security (Prices) Regulations. The defendants demurred to the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether paragraph 8 of Prices Regulation Order No. 1015 was a valid exercise of the power conferred by regulation 23(2)(b)(i) of the National Security (Prices) Regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine if the regulation required the order published in the Gazette to identify the specific person or persons to whom a notice fixing maximum rates would subsequently be given, or if a general declaration allowing for such notices to any person was sufficient. A secondary issue, if paragraph 8 was valid, concerned whether the notice itself was sufficiently certain to be valid.

The High Court, by majority, held that paragraph 8 of Prices Regulation Order No. 1015 was void. The court reasoned that regulation 23(2)(b)(i) contemplated a two-step process: first, an order published in the Gazette that would identify the person or persons to whom a notice fixing maximum rates would be sent, and second, the actual notice in writing to that identified person. The court found that paragraph 8 of the Order merely repeated the general power granted by the regulation without identifying any specific person or persons, thereby failing to satisfy the requirement that the order published in the Gazette should specify the individual(s) to be affected. This interpretation was supported by the language of the regulation, which referred to "any person" and then "to that person," implying a need for identification.

Consequently, the High Court overruled the demurrer. The court declared that paragraph 8 of Prices Order No. 1015 was void for exceeding the powers conferred by the National Security (Prices) Regulations, and that the notice issued to the plaintiffs on 23rd August 1945, based on this invalid paragraph, was also of no effect. The plaintiffs were awarded costs.