Bird v John Sharp and Sons Pty Ltd [1942] HCA 27

Bird v John Sharp and Sons Pty Ltd [1942] HCA 27

Order No. 100, which fixed maximum prices, continued in operation after the amendment by Statutory Rules 1941 No. 54 inserting a new reg. 23(1), because (i) reg. 23(5) was unaltered and explicitly provided for the continuing application of such orders to declared goods, and (ii) the amendments did not expressly revoke prices orders, and the legislative intention, supported by the wording and continuity, was to preserve and continue Price Regulation Orders made under repealed or amended regulations, provided they remained consistent with the current regulations. Therefore, Order No. 100 was valid and operative at the time of the alleged offences.

Parties
Informant: Henry Scorer Bird; Defendant/respondent: John Sharp & Sons Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Nisi to Review (summary Prosecution) / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria to High Court of Australia
Outcome
Orders nisi to review made absolute (appeal allowed); informations to be remitted to the magistrate for determination according to law.
Legal Topics
Statutory Repeal and Saving of Subordinate Orders, Continuance of Regulations and Orders After Amendment, Maximum Price Fixing Under National Security Regulations
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Criminal Law Statutory Repeal and Saving of Subordinate Orders Continuance of Regulations and Orders After Amendment Maximum Price Fixing Under National Security Regulations

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Scorer Bird

Informant

John Sharp & Sons Pty. Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Orders Nisi to Review (summary Prosecution) / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prices Regulation Order No. 100 remained in force after amendment of its enabling regulation
  2. 2 Effect of repealing and reenacting enabling regulations on orders made under them
  3. 3 Proper construction of savings clause deeming prior orders to have been made under new regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Order No. 100, which fixed maximum prices, continued in operation after the amendment by Statutory Rules 1941 No. 54 inserting a new reg. 23(1), because (i) reg. 23(5) was unaltered and explicitly provided for the continuing application of such orders to declared goods, and (ii) the amendments did not expressly revoke prices orders, and the legislative intention, supported by the wording and continuity, was to preserve and continue Price Regulation Orders made under repealed or amended regulations, provided they remained consistent with the current regulations. Therefore, Order No. 100 was valid and operative at the time of the alleged offences.

Court Disposition

Orders nisi to review made absolute (appeal allowed); informations to be remitted to the magistrate for determination according to law.

Orders

  • Orders nisi made absolute with costs.
  • Cases remitted to magistrate for hearing.