Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1955] UKPCHCA 3

Privy Counem 1955. ed

Oct. 18-20, 25-27;

Nov. 23.

Viscount Simonds,

and Somervell of Harrow.

HIGH COURT [1955.

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

AUSTRALIAN WOOLLEN MILLS PRO- ;

PRIETARY LIMITED ; } ett axp

THE COMMONWEALTH .. .. . ResPonDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Contract—Wool—Subsidization—Auction—Purchase for purpose of manufacture

Subsidy by Commonwealth—Promise—Intention—Contractual obligation— Creation—Subsidies paid and subsequently withdrawn—Payment of moneys by purchaser to Commonwealth—Claim therefor—* Moneys had and received" by Commonwealth for use of purchaser—* Bounties —* Production or export of goods."

The appraisement system set up in war-time under the National Security (Wool) Regulations, and described in Ritchie v. Trustees Executors & Agency Co. Ltd. (1951) 84 C.L.R. 553 and Squatting Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1953) 86 C.L.R. 570, came to an end on 30th June 1946, after which the normal practice of selling wool by auction in Australia was resumed. In June 1946 it was announced that the Commonwealth had decided that a " subsidy " would be paid to manufacturers on wool purchased and used for local manufacture after 30th June 1946, The appellant company, which was a manufacturer, purchased large quantities of wool for local manufacture in the wool years 1946-1947 and 1947-1948, and received large sums by way of subsidy. Early in 1946 it was announced that subsidies would not be paid on wool purchased after 30th June 1948, and that " adjust- ments " would be made on a specified basis as at the date of the " Christmas close-down" of factories in 1948. As at that date the company claimed that there had been an underpayment of subsidy to it. The Commonwealth

claimed that there had been an overpayment of subsidy to it to the extent of