& CRUTTON AWD SO AND AWOTIR Vv. SOMALI OF AUSTRALIA AND OTTERS UDG: SrTAmcy J. This was a sumnons, issved by che defendants, sccking trike out the plaintiffs' Ste eut of Clad end te enter judgwent in the action. for the de ondants, oubstentially upon the greund that the Statesont of Cc digeloses no reasonable cause of section and is frivolous and vexatious, The asplicents relied upon the inherent over of the Court "to atay all proceedings before it which are obviously frivolous and "vexatious or are an abuse of its process", r r 30. Under its inheent jurisdiction, the Court may receive evidence ather than upon Order XVII by affidevit to show that a ple:ding is sn abuse of the process of the Court, whereas under the Rule "the nature of the »ction or the defect "in the plesding mst appear by the pleading snd no affidevit is per- uuniseibie". (Republic of Peru v. Peruvian ete Co 36 Ch D 439, Anal © 1924 pp 414-417). In this case, the res ective parties filed affidevits in support : and in opposition to, the application, and soxe of the deponents were cross examined on behalf of the ,J-intiffs, The jurisdiction is clear . enough, but this stwasry process will only be excrcised in obvious cases - cases which have no solid basis and wust fail (Lawrance v. ra Norreys 15 A.C, 210, Willis v 1 Nowe 1893 2 Ch 345, Electric Devel~ opment ste Co vs Attorney Genernl of Cunada 1919 A.C. 687) . The plain- tiffs ellege thet in the year 1916 the Imperial Government arraenged with the Com-onwealth to obtein for it the whole of she wool clip for the season 1916-197 (with cortaim exceptions) on the toms that the In- perial Government paid 1544 per 1b. on the gressy basis plus a charge of id per 1b. to cover holding and handling charges till the wool wes placed f.oh, ship, that it was a term of the a-vrangewent that wool on sheepskins as well as skin wool and shorn wool should be obtaincd by the Connon e1th for the Imperial Governuent, and that these arrangements were continue ovea{the wool scason 1917-1918 and for the remainder of & the duration of the war, end one wool serson thereafter, cubjeet to an a increase of the holding end hudling charges fron Ja per 1b to $a por 1b, And aveording to the plaintiffs' ptesing pleading, wool on sheepskins be— the longing to the plaintiffs was appraised pursuant to ¥ a Precautions (Sheep- | skins) Regulations and the Yar Brecautions (Wool) Regulations, and ftep ont, 8) sins wore purche sed *y or vequired by the Com owe such appraics. weaadth from the owners thereof an the be 5s, or on the fwith of ral arreange= wont, that the owners should be paid, in r.cpeet of the wool on such sheepe siine, the said e.,reised values of such wool adjus up to the float rete of 153d per 1b on the greasy basis, together with the values of tho skins x rt from the wool upon thes, ss fixed in accordance whth the Regulations. It is also alleged that the t.tal swe vf money rey: enting the flat rate o of 1534 per Jb, on the crensy basis for the gF@ntitics of wool submitted for ayprad tyes greater then the sui of money at which such wool was a,praised, and that at the end of each worl scason the Comonwealth had in hand moneys amounting to a difference between the total sum of mon- per 1b pede, on a er the tétel quantity of wool submitted for appraiscment,end the sum of mon= ey representing 'a flat rate of 15% ssy basis for +m ey #t which such wiol was appreiscd, which difference, the plaintiffs allege, the Wool Committee have distributed or will distribute, between the owners of shorn wool,and refuse to pay any part of such difference to the .Isine tiffs, As an alternative, the pleintiffs submit that by virtue of the Reg- ulations they,xmxx end other vendors of wool and sheepskins,are entitled to equality of treatment with the vendors of shorn and sin wool 9s regards the price to be paid for all wool on sheepskins purchased or acquired by the Cowsonwealth . The arrangement betwcen the Imperial and the Coumonwealth Governments ag to the acquisition of the Austrelian wool clips was exhaustively exaiin- ed bys this Court and by the Judicial Comittee of Iks Vajosty's Priyy Council in Cooke snd others v. The Commonwealth of Australia end thers 31 C.I.R. 394, and on appeal 1923 No 157 (judgmmnt delivered 24th March 1924), "Taking the evidence a a whole their Tordships"were "of opinion "that the only contract or arrangement into which the British Goverment "entered was an arrangement with the Comonwealth Government, not en- Sorceable by any Court, to purchase the clip throngh the Commonwealth "Governeent at the all-round price of 154d per 1b, with an addition "for the handling charges, and to pay to the Coxmonwealth Governs % one "half of eny profits derived from the sale of wool for other than military "purposes, and thet it was left to the Com.onwoalth Government to meke its "own ters with the wool owners as to the distribution among them of the "ardce peid for the wol and eny shere of profits", Their 1 ordships did not, I think, specifically consider the vase of su,pliers of sheepskins with wool ugon them, It as therefore advisable to consider this p: rticu- Jar case a little »ore in detail, On 4th Decenber 1316 the Commonwealth Govermwent intineted to the Imperial Government, in connection with tho acquisitionpf the wool clip, that arrengements would be meade to control exportation of sheepskins in 4 + P15 p 178) order to safeguard the wool position (Cooke's Transcript Gn the 11th the Imperial Governnuent was informed that the Commonweslth hed acquired all woolly shevyskins and were taking a census of all sheepskins under the Regulations of the War Precautions Act. On 20th Decomb ber 1916 the Yor Precautions (Sheepskins) Regulations were passed (Je Rules, 1916 Wo 321), and on 3rd January 1917 the Commonwealth advised the In- perial Government of the terms of these Regulations and subnitted the following proposal: "thet Daperial euthorities notify Comuonweslth Wool ncopitine of its monthly requirements which would be supplied at ap- "praised price plus $d per 18 to cover charges from warehouse to f.o.b. 'balance of sheepskins to be sold though Commonwealth Government by pub- "lie tender or to approved buyers", On 10th January 1917 the Imperial Govers mment agreod to the proposed procedure,and stated its monthly requirements, But there is nothing in all this which detracts from the proposition that a the only contract or CASShE8% nade by the Inperia Government was. "en "arrangement with the Commonwealth Go nent, not enforceable by any "Gourt", and that it was left to the Commonwealth Governuent to make its own terns with the supplicrs of sheepskins with wool upon them, What arrangements, then, were made by the Conmonwealth for the acquisition of sheepskins with wool upon them? This Court in Cooke's Case 31 0.L.R. ct p 419, was of opinion that the Wool Regulations mexg conferred the only legal rights upon owners of skin wool enforceable in the Courts of Law, But on appeal the Judiccal Committee took so: cwhat broader grpund, and investigated the terms ow the faith of which the suypliere' had been induecd to part wathpr deliver up their wool to t: Commonwealth or to the Wool Committee, The Regulations Necesarity for:cd part of the material upon which this conclusion was founded, but were not, as 1 follow their Lordships, the only relevant material, Until July 1916 both partics in this case took their stend upon & tho Regulations, the Table of Sheepskink Linits and the Aypraisonents and Invoices, Gir sdvetd Mitchell for the plaintiffs relied mainly upon the Shonpskin Regulations, Me contended that the parity on vwhach the eppraise- ments of sheepskins should be iade was the price or standard fixed by the Commonwealth' Govermsont for the balance of the Austrelian clip of greasy wx wool for the season 1916-19, This was, #8 we know from Cooke's Case, the xm sum of 1514 por 1M on the greasy basis,with a further sum not exceeding ga per lb for handling charges . Now it is conceded that aypraisenents of sheepskins were made on the b: n Limits, sis of the Tabte of shecpsi Several factors were teken into consideration in fixing these limits (Yeo's affidavit pph 12), but the factor which rendered limits necessary was no doubt the arrangement between the Imperial and the Commonwealth Governments for the acquisition of the Australian wool clips at the flat rate of 15a per Ub on the greasy basis. According to Zr Crompton's affida~ vit, which I must accoyt for present purgoses, it would be possible to arrive at the sum allowed for wool in the appraisements of shcepskins (See Crompton's affidavit pph 9 and ch Yeo's affidavit pph 22), It is not, I think, disputed that the appraised value of wool based on the Limits fixed under the 001 Hogulations (See Wool Regulations pph 13) prods duced @ sum less then that produved for a coiplete clip based on the flat rate of 154d per 1b on the greasy basis, (Sce Yoo's evidence on cross- exrmination and in Cooke's Transcript p 43, Crompton's affidavit pphs 4 and 5). Further, I am preparcd to axmemk assume for present puryoses that the appraised value of shhepskins based on the Table of Sheepskin Limits, night, in reeycet of the Wool item included therein, producn a sum loss than thet produced for a com,lete wool clip on the Late basis, At #11 events, I could not, on this su.wsry process, exclude the plaintiffs from attempting to prove the fact,Conscquently, Sir, Mdvard Vitchel1 claims, the sheepskin owners are cutitled to have the vslue of the wool on their sheepskins adjusted to the sws of 154d »er lb for wool on the greasy ba+ sis, And he relies on the frct that, whilst the owmers of shorn wool 11 received, or will receive, an aduitiqnal sum for their wool on ad- justiaent, the sheepskin owners reécived nothing beyond the appraised value of their ekins with wool upon them. This view, in my opinion, ignores the trne ine. wea introduced nen for the purpose of appraisements, But the grades or classes of wool we very nuersus, and cloarly, the flat rate of 15jd per 1b, for a season's clip could not be applicd indiscriwinately to a11 wool, The Tabie of Li-its discriminated between the 'different classcs or grades of wool: it was based on the flat¢ vate for a complete clip, but differentiated the various class vs or grades, and assigned the limit of price in each grade. & It was a work, 25 I gathered in Cooke's Case, of great difficulty and emazing skill, Be that as it may, the Sheepskin Regulations provided that the appraisewent of the prices to be paid for each parcel of shospskins should be (in accordance) with the list of limits fixed by the Con- tral Committee (See Sheepskin Regulations R 7, Wool Regulations R 13). Appraisoments were wade by sworn appraisers appointed in accordance with the Regulations, end it is declared that their det-crmination of value was final and without appes1 (R 9), though it may or may not be subjezt to arbitration pursuant to R19; Apart fromthe provisions of R 5 (e), it ib to be hoted 'that a' duty sae !dmposed: upon the appraisers, represen- 'Ling 'the Governmént, to estiniate"the vale of, cach parcog of. sheepskins upon the basis prescribed by the Regulations (R 10(b)). Then we find in R 5(d) that the appraised vvelue is the value at which dry sheepskins shall be available for felluongering or any other local purpose, Here, at all events, the adjustment contended for by the plaintiffs would be in- possible, There is nothing in the Regulations, to sy wind, which suggests that the provision as to wool parity operates differently in the respec- tive cases of skins delivered to the Comonyvealth and of skins delivered to fellugngers,or to other persons,for loca€ purposes . And, going further, ind that the invoices delivered by the plaintiffs tu the Covonwealth, claim - until the season 1913-1919 at all events ~ the appraised prices of the sheepskins and nothing clse, All this points, in my opinion, to one conclusion only,-that the sheepskin ow.ers delivered up their skins on the feith of receiving the appraised valuc of those skins and nothing beyond sushxxpx thet appraised value. About July 1918 a now arrangement was uede between the Iiperial aud the Comorwealth Governnents, whereby appradsement was dispensed with, and the Coumonwealth went into the In, et and purchased such skins ws the Imperial Government reqiired, But, accurding to Mr Croxpton, whone version I accept for tke present purposes purposes, there wore no purchases by priva treaty, The appraisers eepegert appointed under the Regulationa informed the shecpskin owners that they rust nawe their prices within the Table of the Sheepskin l.egulations, which, they did. Leter namely, shortly efter the institution of the procecding known as tho Wool Jliping Caso 20 0.1.4. 51 + the system of aypraiseronts was again reverted to, and sheepskins were dclivercd as forrerly, But as to the intervening period, ell that can be said is that the sheeyskin mm owners during that tine delivered up their skins on the faith of being paid prices within the fixed Table Linite, which they themselves named, They received these prices, »nd eennot now, in my opimion, put the erent Cownonwealth "upon terns diffwxxk , from those" put forward by the: A selves, According to the facts deposcd to befure me, and not in any way displaced, the Imperial Government paid to the Conmonweaith Governmont the aupraised prices , or the prices fixed by the sheupskin owners, .lus the ga charge and no morc, jimeheaeaIniicnaanniaiet ia aes eens. a ee np en cE EE th asec eee dante Seepenntizmneenpiondepioapiapententey— . The alternative case made by the plaintiffs, bascd uyon a eigirt to equality of trcatmmnt (R 18) has beenfdispoded of adveracly to them by this Court in Cooke's Case 31 CALSRY at p 420, But for the elucidation of logal principles involved in Cooke's Case, both in this Court and before the Prévy-Gounei2 Judicial Co mittee, I should not have thought that the Gel verti: he Cg hl a tant" Cora an of present case onght to be disposed of suawerkly 7@pplying, howacr, tlio * Van 4 Srintum principles underlying thAhgea, Mismicadacce that the present case is withont any solid basis snd must fail at the trial, and ought,on well settled principles, to be ateyed, Perhaps I ought,in conclusion, to refer to a sum of £222,362, which was wentioned during the argmwent,, It represents a saving made by the Contwd Wool Conmittce on the hendling charged of $a per 1b made to the Inper~ ial Govern ent, At une tii » the Imperial Government w:de a clad, to this sum, but did not pursde it, and the anount hes been carricd to the orcdit of the wool fund, Appareutiy it ie intended to distrivute Lemme a ongst w&ethe shorn wool owners to the exeluaion of the sheepskin owners Bau , clon . = plaintiffs have sade no elain in Kh Acln teapect The of this sum, and agparently Sir award "itchell has sone doubts whether this Court, has, in any case, jurisdiction to entertain suy such cf. Aa. All that I need say is that I cannot des] with it on the present jlending and in the present procesdings, but daack I express no »sinion, favoreble or otherwise, with regerd to it, I suet leave the matter where it stands, and quite open,so far as I ar concern The order is that the action in this Court Cropton and 3on and Another v. The Conmonwealth of Australia end Others, ¥931 Ko $, be for ever stayed,snd that the plaigtiffs do pay the co.ts of such action to the Conmonwcalth, including the costs of the su muns herein, and it is certified that this swmons was proper for the attendance of counsel,