Attorney-General (Cth) v Adelaide Steamship Company Limited [1913] UKPCHCA 2

30 HIGH COURT

(PRIVY COUNCIL.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COM- } "i ' MONWEALTH - 25 eee ces PLAINTIFF, '

AND

THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED anp OTHERS 3 : q DEFENDANTS,

} RESPONDENTS. —

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT.

CURE Trusts and Combines—Combination or agreement in restraint of trade—Monopoly— 1913. Intent to cause detriment to the public—Combination to raise prices—Onus of pam proof of intent—Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909 (No. 9 bh

July 25. 1906—No. 26 of 1909), secs. 4, 7, 9, 10, 15a.

The terms "monopolies" and "monopolize" as used in the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1909 refer to a state of circumstances in which, by a contract or combination in restraint of trade, some trade or industry has passed or is likely to pass into the hands or under the control of a single individual or group of individuals to the detriment of the public.

A restraint of trade may under that Act be detrimental to the public if it creates a monopoly in the sense that it has the effect of bringing about an unreasonable enhancement of the prices of goods or services.

In proceedings under secs. 7 and 9 of that Act the contract or combination or the monopoly or attempt to monopolize must first be established and then the wrongful intent necessary to constitute the offence. The wrongful intent must be proved by proper evidence, such as by evidence that the evils against which the Act is directed are the natural or necessary consequences of the

* Present—Viscount Haldane L.C., Lord Shaw, Lord Moulton, and Lord Parker of Waddington.

18 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

contract or combination, monopoly or attempt to monopolize, and that those evils have in fact ensued. But it is not sufficient to plead the evidence whereby it is sought to establish the wrongful intent and rely upon sec. 15a as rendering proof of what is pleaded unnecessary.