Attorney-General (Vic) v Melbourne [1907] UKPCHCA 3

«5 OLR] OF AUSTRALIA. 257 Solicitors, for appellants, Stone & Burt, for Kidston & Forbes, H.C. or A. Northam. 1907. Solicitor, for respondent, Barker (Crown Solicitor). ae

v

N.G.P. Tue Comaiis- SIONER OF Rattways.

(PRIVY COUNCIL]

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR hone:

STATE OF VICTORIA . APPELLANT ;

AND

THE MAYOR &c, OF THE CITY OF MEL-

BOURNE. . \ RESPONDENTS.

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Electric Light and Power Act 1896 (Vict.) (No. 1413), secs. 13 (d), 38, 39, Pi Charge for supply of electricity—Preference—Ui Uternative ©O' rates—Option given to customer—** Flat rate" — Mazimum demand rate."

1907.

— Undertakers under the Hlectric Light and Power Act 1896 had two scales July 31.

under which they charged consumers for the supply of electricity, and all

consumers had the option of which rate they would select. Under one scale,

called the 'flat rate," consumers were charged for the actual quantity of

electricity supplied at the uniform rate of 43d. per unit. Under the other

scale, called the "maximum demand rate," consumers were charged at the

rate of 7d, per unit as to such portion of the electricity supplied to them as was

equal to a consumption for a period of 45 hours per calendar month at the

highest rate of consumption during the month, and, as to the remainder of

the electricity so supplied during the month, at the rate of 2d. per unit.

Held: That the words ''a supply on the same terms" in sec. 58 of the Blectric Light and Power Act 1896 bear their natural meaning and include price ; that the * preference" prohibited by sec. 39 is a preference between customers dealing under similar circumstances, and not between customers dealing under two different systems of supply, either of which they are free to select, and therefore dealing under entirely different circumstances ; and that therefore the charges were lawful.