Television Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth; Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Postmaster-General (Cth) [1963] HCA 30

High Court of Australia Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ. Television Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth; Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Postmaster-General (Cth) [1963] HCA 30

ORDER In answer to the questions argued pursuant to the order of Windeyer J. of 3rd May 1963, declare that the defendant the Postmaster-General has no power to impose as further conditions of the plaintiff's licence for a commercial television station the intended conditions (other than the condition numbered 1 (1) (a)) set forth in the notice dated 25th January 1963 referred to in par. 7 of the statement of claim. Costs of the argument before the Full Court to be the plaintiff's costs in the action.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 28 Kitto J.

In these cases there have been referred to the Full Court under s. 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1960 Cth certain questions which have arisen as a result of the giving by the Postmaster-General, the Minister administering the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1960 Cth, of notices to two companies which hold commercial television station licences that he intends to impose as further conditions of the licences certain provisions set out in the notices.

The licences, originally granted under s. 81 of the Act, have been extended under s. 85. The effect of the subsistence of such a licence is, by virtue of s. 81 (2), that the establishment, erection, maintenance and use of a station in pursuance of the licence is not to be deemed to be in contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1950 Cth or of the regulations under the Act. The Minister is authorized by s. 81 (1) to grant such a licence upon such conditions as he determines, and he is empowered by s. 108 (1) during the currency of a licence, by notice in writing to the licensee, to impose further conditions. He is required by s. 108 (2) to give not less than fourteen days' notice in writing of his intention to impose a further condition, and to specify in the notice the condition to be imposed. It is in purported compliance with this requirement that the Minister has given the notices the subject of the present proceedings. The questions before us are principally directed to ascertaining whether, if the Minister purports to carry out the intention stated in the notice, the result will be the valid creation of further "conditions" of the licences.