Mayor &c. of the City of Melbourne v Attorney-General (Vic) [1906] HCA 15

Mayor &c. of the City of Melbourne v Attorney-General (Vic) [1906] HCA 15

Sec. 39 of the Electric Light and Power Act 1896 (Vict.) is directed at preventing preference among persons supplied with electricity and does not require a single identical price per unit; the requirement is satisfied if all consumers are offered uniform pricing under the same conditions and may elect among alternative rates.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: The Mayor &c. of the City of Melbourne; Informant/respondent: The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, on the relation of the Metropolitan Gas Co.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 1906
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Electricity Supply Charges, Uniform Pricing, Preference Prohibition
Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Electricity Supply Charges Uniform Pricing Preference Prohibition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor &c. of the City of Melbourne

Defendant/appellant

The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, on the relation of the Metropolitan Gas Co.

Informant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether undertakers under the Electric Light and Power Act 1896 (Vict.) must charge a single uniform price per unit for electricity supplied throughout the municipal area or whether alternative pricing scales are permissible provided all consumers may elect the scale

Ratio Decidendi

Sec. 39 of the Electric Light and Power Act 1896 (Vict.) is directed at preventing preference among persons supplied with electricity and does not require a single identical price per unit; the requirement is satisfied if all consumers are offered uniform pricing under the same conditions and may elect among alternative rates.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellants with costs, including costs of interrogatories and discovery.
  • Respondent to pay costs of appeal.