Bendixen v Coleman [1943] HCA 40

zamiakv R

68 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 401

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

BENDIXEN . i : 4 z : . APPELLANT ; CoMPLAINANT,

AND

COLEMAN, SCOTT, CROFT, AND OTHERS . Responpents. DEFENDANTS,

National Security—Price control—Order fixing and declaring maximum price— H.C. ov A Validity —Vagueness and uncertainty—Prices of liquor—' Bottle"—Sales of 1943, liquor by retail— Cost" plus 25 per cent—Declaration of goods—Goods "in the = —~ possession or under the control of any person in Australia" —Application of S¥DNEY, declaration—National Security (Prices) Regulations (S.R. 1940 No. 176—1942 Nov. 25, 26; No. 513), regs. 22, 23 (1) (a)—Prices Declaration No. 96—Prices Reguiation Dec. 20. Order No. 896.

Latham C.., Rich, Starke,

The meaning of the word "bottle" in relation to spirituous liquors, as it is used in Prices Regulation Order No. 896 made under the National Security (Prices) Regulations, is not so vague and uncertain as to make the Order invalid.

So held by Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ.; Starke J. holding that the Order would be bad for vagueness and uncertainty unless the word " bottle " had a trade meaning in the area to which the Order applies.

By clause 4 of Prices Regulation Order No. 896 the maximum price at which certain non-listed spirituous liquors were permitted to be sold by retail in the Rockhampton area was fixed and declared to be " the cost of such non-listed liquors or the ingredients thereof plus 25 per cent of that cost."

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Starke J. dissent- ing), that the meaning of the word "cost" in clause 4, read in relation to the subject matter to which it is applied, is not so vague and uncertain as to make the Order invalid,

Vardon y. The Commonwealth, (1943) 67 C.L.R. 434, distinguished.

Factors included in "cost," as used in clause 4, discussed.