High Court of Australia
16 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 65
(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY | LIMITED AND OTHERS . raves DEFENDANTS,
APPELLANTS ;
AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE; ReEsponDeENTs. COMMONWEALTH . ¢ . 's
PLAINTIFFS,
ON APPEAL FROM A JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.
Trusts and combines—Combination or agreement in restraint of trade—Monopoly H. C. oF Ac
—Intent to cause detriment to the public—Combination to raise prices—Onus 1912.
of proof as to intent—Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909 (No.9 = ~—
of 1906—No. 26 of 1909), secs. 4, 7, 154. SYDNEY, August 26,
In order to establish an offence under sec. 4 (1) (a) or sec. 7 of the 27,98, 29, 30; Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 there must be proved, not only September 2, an intent to restrain trade or commerce or an intent to monopolize some part $1 42, 9:.) 9» of the trade or commerce with other countries or among the States, but also 16, 17,26.
an intent to cause detriment to the public.
Griffith C.J., 'The term "the public" in those sections is not limited to the consumers of giounor JJ.
any particular commodity, but includes olso the producers of that commodity.
'An agreement in restraint of trade is not necessarily detrimental to the public within the meaning of the Act, and,
'The intent contemplated by those sections to cause detriment to the public is a real intention and not a mere constructive intention imputed from an intent to restrain or monopolize trade.
'A mere combination of the producers of a commodity with the intention of raising the price of that commodity is not necessarily detrimental to the public.
VOL. XV. 5
H.C. or A.
1912. —<—
ADELAIDE SreaMsHIP Co. Lrp.
v.
Tae Kina AND THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF THE Com- MONWEALTH.
HIGH COURT
In sec, 15A of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909, wl provides that the averments of the prosecutor contained in the info declaration or claim shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof the contrary, but so that the averment of intent shall not be deemed cient to prove such intent, the word '' averments" is confined to pure tions of fact and does not extend to conclusions of mixed law and fact,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate