I v Lane

I v Lane - [1922] HCA 60 - HCA 1922 case summary — Zoe

[43]

scarce, so that the disposal of the wool was plainly a matter of serious concern to the community. The transaction proposed b the Imperial Government involved many millions of pounds - an twenty-five millions for the 1916-1917 clip alone; but if it concluded, the financial and industrial position of Australia y be enormously relieved at a critical period of the War. Thus the Commonwealth Government had no difficulty in accepting suggestion of the Imperial Government, both because of the need of the Allied Armies and because of the financial position of Austra The Prime Minister lost little time in summoning a conference representative members of the wool trade. j It is undoubted that at this time the Commonwealth Gove was prepared to use all its powers to acquire the wool in case of n¢ but it preferred, as the Prime Minister said at the conference, as the Treasurer, Mr. Watt, said in his evidence, to work with th co-operation of the wool trade rather than with its opposition. the conference the Prime Minister said that the Empire must acquire the wool clip of Australia for military purposes, but, while emph sizing the imperative need of the hour, he invited a statement fro the conference of the price at which suppliers would sell their and of the arrangements necessary for payment thereof, The con- ference appointed a committee to consider the price which should be named per pound of greasy wool for the Australian clip. tions were agreed to as follows: (1) "That the committee recom- mends that the remainder of the clip for the season 1916-1917 b sold through the Commonwealth Government to the Imperial Govern- ment at 15d. per pound of greasy wool, under the usual conditio of sale in the Australian trade; (2) that the conference propose the appointment of a central wool committee representative of all sections of the Australian wool industry to advise the Prime Min in carrying out the scheme, such committee to consist of growers, two sellers, one buyer, one manufacturer, one scourer, an independent chairman." The conference expressed a desire tha Mr. (now Sir John) Higgins fill the position of Chairman to the Central Committee. 7 These resolutions were brought before the conference and dis- cussed with the Prime Minister, who at once required some infor- mation as to the usual conditions of trade in the Australian industry.

[74]

for the British Government is a better one." We do not suppose H. ©. oF A. that the Prime Minister was at this point defining the legal relations aa of the parties; but, whatever he meant, it is clear that the words do not support the allegation that the Commonwealth was agent for the Ne plaintiffs. The following cables next pass between the Commonwealth and the Imperial Government : 22nd November 1916 - '* Common- wealth prepared to acquire wool clip 1916-1917" ; 4th December 1916

Commonwealth is prepared to sell Australian wool clip"; 13th ~ December 1916 - ' His Majesty's Government agrees to the proposal ate that wool clip should be secured on its behalf by Government of the Commonwealth." On 14th December 1916 the Prime Minister, in announcing the wool clip arrangement to Parliament, used these words : - '* The Commonwealth Government is to acquire on behalf of the British Government the whole of the merino and cross-bred clip of Australian wools, excluding only those that passed under the hammer before 23rd November last. . . . A regulation was passed the other day prohibiting further sales or transactions in wool or sheep- skins. The Government having acquired these at a price fixed by negotiations between the British and Commonwealth Governments, it is not considered advisable that there should be any speculation which would place the seller at a disadvantage. Every seller has now a sure buyer . . . and that buyer being the Government acting on behalf of the British Government, he can be under no disadvantage whatever." On 20th December 1916 the Prime Minister, again speaking in Parliament, said : - '* The purchaser is the Imperial Government. The agent for the Imperial Government is the Commonwealth Government, and the head of the Common- wealth Government is in actual control of the scheme." On 6th March 1917 the then Treasurer (Sir John Forrest, afterwards Lord Forrest) also made a speech in Parliament in connection with the acquisition of the 1916-1917 wool clip, and so did the Prime Minister in March and July 1917; but as to the matter under consideration, these speeches add nothing to the statements already made by the Prime Minister.

[143]

its administration of the Wool Regulations (see par. 24 (a) (j) ). Appraisements were made; and the Commonwealth, as agent for the Imperial Government, paid in the first place nine-tenths of the appraised value, and ultimately the remaining one-tenth referred to as retention money (see pars. 14, 15). The Commonwealth or the Central Wool Committee earned interest on this retention money (par. 15). One or other of them also received, in addition to the retention money, a considerable sum of money representing the difference between the moneys paid by the Imperial Government ata flat rate of 154d. per pound of wool on the greasy basis under the agreements already mentioned, and the total appraisements, which money was not completely distributed. The Commonwealth or the Central Wool Committee received, too, from the Imperial Govern- ment, under the agreements already mentioned, instalments of the half share of profits made by the Imperial Government in the dis- posal of the wool (par. 21). The Commonwealth or the Central Wool Committee further received sums of money by way of profit on exchanges, by way of savings on the holding and handling charges of the wool sold to the Imperial Government, and from the invest- ment and utilization of such profits and savings and from other sources. A large sum of money or fund thus came to the hands of the Commonwealth or the Central Wool Committee, and was avail- able for distribution amongst the wool suppliers ; but the Common- wealth and the Central Wool Committee refused to distribute it except on the basis of the skin wool suppliers not being entitled to participate in such fund in respect of any wool of theirs appraised during the seasons 1918-1919, 1919-1920 (par. 23). A further com- plaint is that portion of the fund was distributed in the following manner: among the owners of shorn wool an amount equal to 5 per cent. on the value of all wool submitted by them for appraise- ment and sold during the whole four wool seasons 1916-1917, 1917- 1918, 1918-1919, 1919-1920, but among the owners of skin wool an amount equal to 5 per cent. on the value of skin wool submitted by them for appraisement and sold during the seasons 1916-1917

[174]

arrangement between the two Governments would be carried out in good faith, or at least they were content to act wpon that assumption. Regulations were passed for the administration of the scheme, and a committee was set up at the suggestion of representatives of the wool trade to administer it. The trade had the practical control of its administration, subject to the direction of the Government through the Prime Minister. The task of carrying out the scheme was substantially entrusted to the Central Wool Committee as an administrative function of Government. It is possible that some provisions confer rights enforceable by individuals, but in the main the administration of the scheme was left to the wisdom, fairness and discretion of the Committee (Wool Shiping and Scour- ing Co. v. Central Wool Committee (1) ). The suppliers, in our opinion, delivered up their wool on the basis of these regulations, and became entitled to the rights given by them and to no other rights. If the regulations confer any legal rights upon the plain- tiffs, then those rights are enforceable in the Courts of law. If, on the other hand, the regulations confer no such rights upon the plaintiffs, then the administration of the scheme and of the moneys arising therefrom is necessarily a matter for the discretion and judgment of the administrative body, whose decision the Courts of law have, in that case, no right or power to revise or control. These views incidentally destroy the plaintiffs' submission that the Imperial Government paid over the moneys in question here to the Common- wealth upon trust for the plaintiffs, or with a direction to pay the same to them. But, in point of fact, we feel no doubt that the Imperial Government never created any such trust or gave any such direction. The Director-General of Raw Materials put very clearly the attitude of the Imperial Government, when replying to a claim by the solicitors for the skin wool suppliers for the protection of their clients' rights. "This Department," he said, "is not con- cerned with the distribution in Australia of wool profits. Lump sums will be paid to Commonwealth authorities, who will make the ° The case, therefore, depends, in our opinion, upon the construction of the Wool Regu- lations.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (178 paragraphs)

Parties

Cited By (1)