Ex parte H Brazil & Co Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 25

High Court of Australia Gibbs A.C.J. Stephen, Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ. Ex parte H Brazil & Co Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 25

ORDER Order to review discharged with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

June 22 Gibbs A.C.J.

The Hen Quotas Act, 1973-1975 Q. is expressed to be an Act relating to the stabilization of the egg industry. Under the Act provision is made for the allocation of egg producers' basic hen quotas, adjusted hen quotas and temporary hen quotas, the holders of which are given certain exclusive rights to sell or otherwise dispose of eggs.

The appellants were convicted of an offence against s. 56 (1) (b) of the Act which provides as follows:

Any person who, except with the prior approval of the Committee (proof whereof shall lie upon him)—

(b) keeps over quota hens,

is guilty of an offence against this Act. The phrase "over quota hens" is defined by s. 6 to mean "hens kept by an egg producer in excess of his quota flock or temporary quota flock." By the same section, "quota flock" means "the number of hens constituting the whole or part of an egg producer's basic hen quota or of an egg producer's adjusted hen quota" and "temporary quota flock" means "the number of hens constituting the whole or part of an egg producer's temporary hen quota". The Committee referred to in the section is the Hen Quota Committee constituted under the Act.

The evidence given before the magistrate established that the appellant company had been granted an egg producer's basic hen quota of 14,367 hens for the 1976-1977 season, and had not been granted any adjusted hen quota. Its quota flock was therefore 14,367. However on 25th February 1977 it kept 16,438 hens, without the prior approval of the Hen Quota Committee. Subject to one matter that will shortly be mentioned it could not be contested that in these circumstances the appellant company had committed an offence against s. 56 (1) (b). If the company committed an offence, the two individual appellants, who were respectively a director and the manager of the company, were deemed also to have committed that offence: see s. 58 of the Act.