Television & General Finance Co v Button [1961] HCA 84

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Windeyer and Owen JJ. Television & General Finance Co v Button [1961] HCA 84

ORDER Special leave refused.

Dixon C.J delivered the judgment of the Court:—

Dec. 12 Dixon C.J.

This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order made by Joske J. in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. I need not describe the proceedings before Joske J. The question before him was whether, within the meaning of s. 21 of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance, a debt arose within the Australian Capital Territory.

It is not necessary to state in detail all the circumstances of the case; it is enough to say that the source of the debt was the hiring of a television set. The alleged debtor resided in New South Wales. She entered into a hire purchase agreement which was expressed to say that she thereby offered to hire the goods specified in the schedule from the vendor (who is now the applicant). The television set was specified in the schedule. There are various descriptions given of matters attending the transaction and there is a schedule which stated the terms of hiring. The terms included a provision enabling her to terminate the hire in the ordinary way which hire purchase instruments prescribe.

At the foot of the agreement was this statement: "I promise to make such monthly payments to Television & General Finance Company [that is, the applicant] at 591 King Street, Newtown". That fixed the place of payment. You have therefore an offer on her part, a person resident in New South Wales, to pay for the hire of an instrument, delivered in New South Wales, at an address in Sydney in New South Wales.

Section 21 of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance provides that the Court (that is, the Court of Petty Sessions) shall have jurisdiction notwithstanding that the defendant is not within the Territory, provided in the case of a defendant in an action for the recovery of any damages, debt or demand, the Court shall have jurisdiction as provided in the next succeeding sub-section, that is, sub-s. (2). Sub-section (2) then provides that, if the defendant is within any State of the Commonwealth or part of the Commonwealth other than the Territory, the jurisdiction shall only extend to the following cases, the first, and only relevant one, of which is "when the debt or demand sued for, or the liability for damages arose within the Territory". The facts I have stated all point to the fact that the debt did not arise within the Australian Capital Territory, but in New South Wales. Those facts, however, are said by the applicant to be answered by the circumstance that the document is expressed as an offer and that it was necessary that it should be accepted by the company which is described as the vendor, and that it was so accepted. The document was subscribed as follows: "The vendor accepts the above offer this 4th of June 1959" and then it is signed. And it was signed in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory. It is said that that meant that the agreement was finally accepted and became binding then, so that it was made in the Australian Capital Territory.