R v Bromhead [1946] HCA 57

R v Bromhead [1946] HCA 57

By majority, the Court held that the notification fixing maximum prices, even if motivated by concern with profits, was within the powers conferred by the National Security (Prices) Regulations. The Regulations contemplated the fixing of maximum prices for individual traders by direct notification, and consideration of profits was legitimate in setting prices—even solely for the purpose of reducing profits. Consequently, the notification was valid and the convictions stood.

Parties
Prosecutor: The King; Respondents (magistrate and Informant): Bromhead and Another; Applicant/defendant (also Appellant): Miss Daveney Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal (and Application for Statutory Prohibition) / Judgment on Appeals to Full Court of the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; orders nisi for prohibition discharged.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Delegated Legislation, Price Control, Administrative Discretion, Purpose of Statutory Power, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Delegated Legislation Price Control Administrative Discretion Purpose of Statutory Power Judicial Review of Administrative Action

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Prosecutor

Bromhead and Another

Respondents (magistrate and Informant)

Miss Daveney Proprietary Limited

Applicant/defendant (also Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (and Application for Statutory Prohibition) / Judgment on Appeals to Full Court of the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notification fixing maximum prices was a valid exercise of the price-fixing power under the National Security (Prices) Regulations or an invalid exercise for the ulterior purpose of profit control.
  2. 2 Whether fixing maximum prices solely to control profits, and not prices, is authorised by the Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the power to fix prices under National Security (Prices) Regulations includes the power to discriminate between traders for the purpose of controlling profits.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the notification fixing maximum prices, even if motivated by concern with profits, was within the powers conferred by the National Security (Prices) Regulations. The Regulations contemplated the fixing of maximum prices for individual traders by direct notification, and consideration of profits was legitimate in setting prices—even solely for the purpose of reducing profits. Consequently, the notification was valid and the convictions stood.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; orders nisi for prohibition discharged.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs.
  • Orders nisi for writs of prohibition discharged.