Grannall v C Geo Kellaway & Sons Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 5

Grannall v C Geo Kellaway & Sons Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 5

The defendant's s. 92 defence failed because the evidence did not show that the commission restriction applied to an operation of inter-State trade or necessarily impaired the freedom of Direen or the defendant to carry on inter-State commerce. However, the information had to be dismissed because the offence required a charge within New South Wales, and on the evidence the charge was made only by communication of the account sales and cheque to Direen in Tasmania; the essential element of charging therefore occurred outside New South Wales.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Information for a Summary Offence Against S. 23 of the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926 1952 N.s.w. / Cause Removed From the Court of Petty Sessions at Sydney to the High Court Under S. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 1950 and Referred to the Full Court Under S. 18
Outcome
Information dismissed.
Legal Topics
['s. 92 of the Constitution' 'inter State Trade' 'farm Produce Agents' 'commission Regulation' 'territorial Operation of Offences']
['constitutional Law' 'trade and Commerce' 'criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['s. 92 of the Constitution' 'inter State Trade' 'farm Produce Agents' 'commission Regulation' 'territorial Operation of Offences']

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

Information for a Summary Offence Against S. 23 of the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926 1952 N.s.w. / Cause Removed From the Court of Petty Sessions at Sydney to the High Court Under S. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 1950 and Referred to the Full Court Under S. 18

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 23 (1) (a) of the Farm Produce Agents Act 1926-1952 N.S.W. and reg. 10 validly operated, consistently with s. 92 of the Constitution, to prohibit a farm produce agent from charging more than the prescribed commission on fruit consigned from Tasmania to Sydney.' 'Whether the evidence showed that the defendant committed within New South Wales the offence of charging more than seven and one-half per cent commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's s. 92 defence failed because the evidence did not show that the commission restriction applied to an operation of inter-State trade or necessarily impaired the freedom of Direen or the defendant to carry on inter-State commerce. However, the information had to be dismissed because the offence required a charge within New South Wales, and on the evidence the charge was made only by communication of the account sales and cheque to Direen in Tasmania; the essential element of charging therefore occurred outside New South Wales.

Court Disposition

Information dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Information dismissed.' 'Informant to pay the costs of the hearing in the Court of Petty Sessions at Sydney.' 'Otherwise no order as to costs.']