Television & General Finance Co (Aust) Ltd v Button [1961] HCA 84; (1961) 107 CLR 168 (12 December 1961)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TELEVISION AND GENERAL FINANCE CO. (AUST.) LTD. v. BUTTON [1961] HCA 84; (1961) 107 CLR 168

Inferior Courts

High Court of Australia
Dixon C.J.(1), Windeyer(1) and Owen(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Inferior Courts - Court of Petty Sessions (A.C.T.) - Jurisdiction - Debt for hire of television set to a resident of New South Wales - Amounts of hire payable in New South Wales - Agreement expressed to have been made by acceptance in Australian Capital Territory - Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930-1938 (A.C.T.), s. 21.

HEARING

Sydney, 1961, December 8, 12. 12:12:1961
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

DECISION

December 12.
DIXON C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court:-
This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order made by 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. (at p169)

2. 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 p169)

3. 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. (at p170)

4. 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. (at p170)

5. If the agreement is scrutinized, it may well be doubted whether this acceptance was the thing which created a binding obligation upon the company at all, or made the hirer's obligation any more binding on her. The reason for that is that the agreement is so drawn that she is in the ordinary position of a Helby v. Matthews' hirer, if I may so call it, and she had made an express promise which would be operative on delivery of the instrument (cf. Helby v. Matthews (1895) AC 471 ). But however that may be, we do not think the circumstance relied on is enough to rebut the presumption that this debt, which is a debt for hire of the instrument, arose in New South Wales. (at p170)

6. We therefore think that special leave should be refused. (at p170)

ORDER

Special leave refused.