Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v Finlayson [1916] HCA 77

340 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} ;

THE METROPOLITAN MEAT INDUSTRY BOARD : waite f 7 aes

} APPELLANTS ; AND

FINLAYSON AND OTHERS . > 5 . REsponDENTs.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. Public Authority—Regulation of trade—Consent—Discretion—Duty to hear and deter-

1916. mine—Duty to give reasons—Abattoirs—Mandamus—Meat Industry Act 1915 ee, (W.S.W.) (No. 69 of 1915), secs. 19, 20. Sypyry, Dec. 12, 13, Sec. 19 of the Meat Industry Act 1915 (N.S.W.) provides that " After this Act 14. comes into force—(1) No person shall, except with the consent of and under the Bamares conditions prescribed by the" Metropolitan Meat Industry " Board, within esto, Ke the metropolitan abattoir area, slaughter any cattle or dress any carcase for Rich JJ. human consumption, except at a public abattoir." Sec. 20 provides that

"The consent of the Board, under the last preceding section, may be given in such form, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Board may in its absolute discretion determine."

Held, that under those sections the Metropolitan Meat Industry Board haye an absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or withhold their consent and, therefore, that on an application for their consent they need not give reasons for withholding it, or, before determining whether to grant or withhold it, inform the applicant of any objection which they think stands in his way 80 that he may have an opportunity of meeting it.

Ex parte J. C. Hutton Proprietary Ltd., 16 8.R. (N.S.W.), 387, discussed.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Ex parte Finlayson, 16 S.R. (N.S.W.), 591, reversed.

Pe me Sek ow «

.22 CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA.

Appears from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Pursuant to by-laws made by the Metropolitan Meat Industry Board under the power contained in the Meat Industry Act 1915, William Finlayson on 26th August 1916 applied to the Board for their consent to the slaughter of cattle for human consumption at certain premises owned by him within the metropolitan abattoir area. On 6th September 1916 Finlayson received from the Secretary of the Board a letter stating that the Board, having carefully con: sidered all the facts of the case and in exercise of the discretion vested in them by the Meat Industry Act 1915, declined to consent to slaughtering being carried on at the premises in question. On 2nd October Finlayson wrote to the Board a letter asking them to inform him on what grounds they refused their consent. On 16th October Finlayson received a reply stating that the Board were not prepared to supply their grounds of refusal. Finlayson thereupon obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus directed to the Board, requiring them to give their consent as asked, or, in the alternative, to hear and determine the application for such consent according to law. The grounds stated in the order nisi were: (1) that it is the duty of the Board to give such consent subject to the conditions pre- scribed; (2) that the Board have no power to refuse their consent so as to prohibit such slaughtering absolutely under any conditions at private abattoirs in the metropolitan abattoir area; (3) that the action of the Board is not an exercise of the discretion vested in them under and within the authority of the Meat Industry Act ; (4) that the Board have no power to refuse a licence without dis- closing the grounds of such refusal, and affording the applicant an opportunity to correct and remove the objections, if any.