Shrimpton v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 4

Shrimpton v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 4

By majority, the Court held that the condition imposed by the Treasurer requiring the purchaser to deposit Commonwealth bonds was not authorized by the Regulations, as such a condition was unrelated to the purposes of land purchase control and the defence power. Further, on a separate ground, Rich and Williams JJ held that Part III of the Regulations, so far as it related to land sale or purchase, was not authorized by the Constitution or the National Security Act and was therefore invalid.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Frances Shrimpton; Defendant: The Commonwealth; Defendant: The Treasurer (Joseph Benedict Chifley)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Action Referred to Full Court / Judgment After Hearing Before Full Court
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted to the plaintiff (by majority): the Treasurer's bond deposit condition not authorized; additionally, Part III of the Regulations declared invalid by majority on constitutional grounds.
Legal Topics
Defence Power, Validity of Regulations, Executive Discretion, National Security Act, Economic Controls, Purchase of Land, Consent of Treasurer, Condition Precedent, Ultra Vires
Constitutional Law Defence Power Validity of Regulations Executive Discretion National Security Act Economic Controls Purchase of Land Consent of Treasurer +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Frances Shrimpton

Plaintiff

The Commonwealth

Defendant

The Treasurer (Joseph Benedict Chifley)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action Referred to Full Court / Judgment After Hearing Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part III of the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations, relating to the sale or purchase of land, is authorized by the Constitution or the National Security Act 1939-1943
  2. 2 Whether the Treasurer is empowered to require the deposit of Commonwealth bonds as a condition of granting consent to a land purchase

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the condition imposed by the Treasurer requiring the purchaser to deposit Commonwealth bonds was not authorized by the Regulations, as such a condition was unrelated to the purposes of land purchase control and the defence power. Further, on a separate ground, Rich and Williams JJ held that Part III of the Regulations, so far as it related to land sale or purchase, was not authorized by the Constitution or the National Security Act and was therefore invalid.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted to the plaintiff (by majority): the Treasurer's bond deposit condition not authorized; additionally, Part III of the Regulations declared invalid by majority on constitutional grounds.

Orders

  • Declare that upon the true construction of the Regulations the Treasurer is not empowered to require as a condition of granting consent to a land purchase that security be deposited with a bank or that the specified order be signed and handed to the bank manager.
  • Defendant (Commonwealth) to pay costs of the action.