Bendixen v Coleman [1943] HCA 40

Bendixen v Coleman [1943] HCA 40

The meaning of 'bottle' as used in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 is sufficiently certain, either in ordinary English or trade usage, to support valid price fixing. 'Cost' in clause 4 refers to the retailer's outlay for liquor and is ascertainable, making the order enforceable. Prices Declaration No. 96 applies to goods in possession or under control of any person in Australia whenever acquired. The Commonwealth has legislative power to make price regulations for liquor and is not prevented by s.113 or s.99 of the Constitution. Magistrates' findings of invalidity were incorrect; prosecutions could proceed.

Parties
Appellant, Complainant, Prosecutor: Edward Bendixen; Respondent, Defendant: Marion Scott; Respondent, Defendant: Rosa Ethel Coleman; Respondent, Defendant: Robert Albion Burney Croft; Respondent, Defendant: Mahoney; Respondent, Defendant: Hall; Respondent, Defendant: Boland; Respondent, Defendant: Spiers; Respondent, Defendant: Berry; Respondent, Defendant: Fitzgerald; Respondent, Defendant: Pattingale; Respondent, Defendant: Cheetham; Respondent, Defendant: Sheedy; Respondent, Defendant: Tattam
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Magistrates' Dismissal of Complaints / Judgment on Stated Case
Outcome
appeal allowed; orders of magistrate set aside; complaints remitted for adjudication
Legal Topics
Price Control, Penal Statutes, Trade Usage Interpretation, Statutory Interpretation, Liquor Regulation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Price Control Penal Statutes Trade Usage Interpretation Statutory Interpretation Liquor Regulation

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Bendixen

Appellant, Complainant, Prosecutor

Marion Scott

Respondent, Defendant

Rosa Ethel Coleman

Respondent, Defendant

Robert Albion Burney Croft

Respondent, Defendant

Mahoney

Respondent, Defendant

Hall

Respondent, Defendant

Boland

Respondent, Defendant

Spiers

Respondent, Defendant

Berry

Respondent, Defendant

Fitzgerald

Respondent, Defendant

Pattingale

Respondent, Defendant

Cheetham

Respondent, Defendant

Sheedy

Respondent, Defendant

Tattam

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Magistrates' Dismissal of Complaints / Judgment on Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prices Regulation Order No. 896 is invalid for vagueness or uncertainty due to use of 'bottle';
  2. 2 Whether clause 4 (cost plus 25 per cent) is too vague to be enforceable;
  3. 3 Whether Prices Declaration No. 96 applies to goods in possession or under control whenever acquired;

Ratio Decidendi

The meaning of 'bottle' as used in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 is sufficiently certain, either in ordinary English or trade usage, to support valid price fixing. 'Cost' in clause 4 refers to the retailer's outlay for liquor and is ascertainable, making the order enforceable. Prices Declaration No. 96 applies to goods in possession or under control of any person in Australia whenever acquired. The Commonwealth has legislative power to make price regulations for liquor and is not prevented by s.113 or s.99 of the Constitution. Magistrates' findings of invalidity were incorrect; prosecutions could proceed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; orders of magistrate set aside; complaints remitted for adjudication

Orders

  • Bendixen v. Scott—Appeal allowed with costs; order of magistrate set aside; questions answered in favour of appellant; case remitted to magistrate; similar orders in Mahoney, Hall, Boland, Spiers, Berry cases.
  • Bendixen v. Coleman—Appeal allowed with costs; order of magistrate set aside; questions answered in favour of appellant; case remitted; similar orders for Fitzgerald, Pattingale, Cheetham, Sheedy, Tattam.