Melbourne Steamship Company Limited v Moorehead [1912] HCA 69

Melbourne Steamship Company Limited v Moorehead [1912] HCA 69

Once the Attorney-General has instituted proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909, the investigatory power to require answers to questions under section 158 is spent as regards any persons implicated in that offence, whether or not they are formal parties; further, section 158 does not empower the Comptroller-General to require an incorporated company to answer such questions as to the best of its knowledge, information, and belief.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Melbourne Steamship Company Limited; Respondent/informant: Richard William Moorehead (officer of Customs)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal (criminal/summary Prosecution) / Final Appellate Judgment in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Executive Investigatory Powers, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Applicability to Corporations, Parliamentary Intention in Statutory Definitions
Administrative Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Competition/trade Law Executive Investigatory Powers Privilege Against Self Incrimination Applicability to Corporations Parliamentary Intention in Statutory Definitions

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Melbourne Steamship Company Limited

Appellant/defendant

Richard William Moorehead (officer of Customs)

Respondent/informant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (criminal/summary Prosecution) / Final Appellate Judgment in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can the power under section 158 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909 be used to ask questions in aid of pending legal proceedings?
  2. 2 Does section 158 empower the Comptroller-General to require an incorporated company to answer questions?

Ratio Decidendi

Once the Attorney-General has instituted proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909, the investigatory power to require answers to questions under section 158 is spent as regards any persons implicated in that offence, whether or not they are formal parties; further, section 158 does not empower the Comptroller-General to require an incorporated company to answer such questions as to the best of its knowledge, information, and belief.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed with £10 10s. costs.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the appeal.