Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1977] HCA 71

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1977] HCA 71

A majority of the Court (Gibbs, Mason, Murphy JJ) held that the Airlines Agreements do not give rise to an implied contractual obligation binding the Commonwealth to prevent the entry of a third operator on trunk routes, nor to use its powers (including over importation of aircraft) for that end. Express terms do not support such an implication, and public law principles preclude implying or enforcing a promise which would fetter statutory or executive discretion or conflict with public or constitutional policy (including section 92 of the Constitution). Statutory approval of the Agreements does not alter this result. Any breach could only sound in damages, not injunction. Therefore, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Demurrer to Statement of Claim / High Court—judgment After Argument on Demurrer
Outcome
Demurrers allowed. Action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['statutory Interpretation' 'implied Terms in Contracts' 'fettering Executive Discretion' 'section 92 of the Constitution (trade and Commerce)' 'two Airline Policy' 'importation of Aircraft' 'government Contracts and Statutory Approval']
['constitutional Law' 'contract Law' 'administrative Law' 'aviation Law'] ['statutory Interpretation' 'implied Terms in Contracts' 'fettering Executive Discretion' 'section 92 of the Constitution (trade and Commerce)' 'two Airline Policy' 'importation of Aircraft' 'government Contracts and Statutory Approval']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Demurrer to Statement of Claim / High Court—judgment After Argument on Demurrer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Airlines Agreements between the plaintiff and Commonwealth create an implied obligation on the Commonwealth not to facilitate a third trunk route airline operator' 'Whether such a covenant would be compatible with s. 92 of the Constitution' 'Whether the Commonwealth can lawfully fetter its discretion or the statutory discretion of its officers by contract' 'The meaning and consequence of statutory approval of such Agreements' 'Whether the Commonwealth or its officers are bound to act pursuant to government policy in exercising discretions under regulations']

Ratio Decidendi

A majority of the Court (Gibbs, Mason, Murphy JJ) held that the Airlines Agreements do not give rise to an implied contractual obligation binding the Commonwealth to prevent the entry of a third operator on trunk routes, nor to use its powers (including over importation of aircraft) for that end. Express terms do not support such an implication, and public law principles preclude implying or enforcing a promise which would fetter statutory or executive discretion or conflict with public or constitutional policy (including section 92 of the Constitution). Statutory approval of the Agreements does not alter this result. Any breach could only sound in damages, not injunction. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

Demurrers allowed. Action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Demurrers allowed with costs.' 'Action dismissed with costs.']