Maritime Electric Company Ltd v General Dairies Ltd, Maritime Electric Company Ltd v Fredericton Dairies Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1937 |
| Year | 1937 |
| Date | 1937 |
Canada - New Brunswick - Estoppel - Electricity - Supplied by “public utility” company - Compulsory statutory charges - Company's error in computation of accounts - Consumer inadvertently undercharged - Claim to recover balance - Plea of estoppel - Estoppel barred by positive statutory duty to charge and pay at specified rates -
The appellants, a private company which generated and supplied electrical power in the City of Fredericton, New Brunswick, were, however, a “public utility” company within the meaning of the Public Utilities Act, R. S. 1927, of New Brunswick, and were accordingly under a statutory duty to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities, and were strictly limited, in accordance with filed schedules open to public inspection, as to the rates, tolls and charges which they could make and exact. The respondents, who carried on a dairy business in Fredericton, bought from the appellants electric energy which they used in the manufacture of butter, ice-cream and other milk products. To arrive at the correct amount of electric energy supplied it was necessary to multiply the meter dial reading by ten, but owing to a mistake on the part of the appellants that was not done over a period of twenty-eight months, with the result that during that time the respondents were charged with only one-tenth of the electric energy supplied to them. On a claim by the appellants to recover the balance of nine-tenths:—
Held, that the appellants were not estopped from recovering the sum claimed. The duty imposed by the Public Utilities Act on the appellants to charge, and on the respondents to pay, at scheduled rates, for all the electric current supplied by the one and used by the other could not be defeated or avoided by a mere mistake in the computation of accounts. The relevant sections of the Act were enacted for the benefit of a section of the public, and in such a case where the statute imposed a duty of a positive kind it was not open to the respondents to set up an estoppel to prevent it.
An estoppel is only a rule of evidence, and could not avail to release the appellants from an obligation to obey the statute, nor could it enable the respondents to escape from the statutory obligation to pay at the scheduled rates. The duty of each party was to obey the law.
The Queen v. Blenkinsop [
APPEAL (No. 9 of 1936), by special leave, from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (June 28, 1935), reversing a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (June 5, 1934), which had affirmed a judgment of Richards J. in the King's Bench Division (March 16, 1934).
The appellants, Maritime Electric Company, Ld., were a private company which sold electrical power in the City of Fredericton, New Brunswick. The company was, however, a “public utility” company within the meaning of the Public Utilities Act of New Brunswick, R. S. 1927, c. 127, and was accordingly under a statutory duty to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities, and was strictly limited as to the rates, tolls and charges it could make, which must be in exact accordance with filed schedules open to public inspection. The respondents, General Dairies, Ld., who carried on a dairy business in Fredericton and manufactured and sold butter, ice-cream and other milk products, bought electric energy from the appellants. In order to arrive at the correct amount of electric energy supplied it was necessary to multiply the meter dial reading by ten. Through an error on the part of the appellants that was not done, and as a result the respondents were charged for only one-tenth of the electric energy supplied to them during the period December, 1929, to March, 1932. In the action the appellants claimed the balance of nine-tenths, amounting to $1931. The respondents pleaded that the appellants were in the circumstances estopped from recovering that balance. The appellants contended that estoppel was barred or precluded by the provisions of the Public Utilities Act. Secondly, it was said that, apart from the Act, there could be no estoppel since the representations contained in the monthly statements of account were not intended to induce any course of conduct on the part of the respondents other than the payment of the amounts stated to be due.
The facts appear more fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Richards J., in the King's Bench Division, decided both points in favour of the appellants, and gave judgment for the sum claimed.
In the Appellate Division (Grimmer A.C.J., Baxter and Le Blanc JJ.) the decision of Richards J. was affirmed.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, delivered by Dysart J., and concurred in by Duff C.J., Lamont, Cannon and Davis JJ., decided both contentions in favour of the present respondents, and the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada is reported at [
1936. Dec. 14, 15. Harold Murphy K.C. and Frank Gahan for the appellants. The only point is whether the appellants are estopped from recovering from the respondents the balance of the price of electric energy supplied by reason of their having omitted to charge the respondents for it in the monthly accounts which they rendered. There is no fact in dispute. The error arose from a miscalculation of the proper amount on the basis of the figure shown on the meter. The question of estoppel divides itself into two branches: first, whether the agreed circumstances are such as to create an estoppel at all, apart from any statutory obligation which the appellants are under; and secondly, whether, having regard to the statutory obligations imposed on the appellants, estoppel can in any event lie. [Reference was made to the Public Utilities Act, R. S. 1927, of New Brunswick, c. 127.] This case will turn very much on whether the four propositions of an estoppel in pais laid down in 1875 by Brett J. in Carr v. London & North Western Ry. Co.F1 remain an exhaustive definition on the subject, or whether they have been enlarged. [The four propositions were read, and reference was also made to Maclaine v. Gatty.F2] From 1875 to the present time there does not appear to have been any decision casting any doubt upon those four propositions of Brett J. as being a comprehensive statement of the law of estoppel. [Reference was made to Greenwood v. Martins BankF3; The Queen v. Blenkinsop.F4] The authorities before Carr v. London & North Western Ry. Co.F5 seem to be illustrations of the principle set out quite clearly in Carr's caseF5: Skyring v. Greenwood.F6 [Reference was also made to Holt v. Markham.F7]
With regard to the statute point, there is a complete analogy to the legislation contained in the Public Utilities Act, 1927, in the Interstate Commerce legislation of the United States of America. Sect. 16 of the Public Utilities Act imposes an absolute duty to charge and to recover no more and no less than certain amounts for such services as actually are rendered. And until the charges in respect of the further services which were in fact rendered in the present case have been charged and recovered those obligations have not been complied with. In Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. FinkF8, decided under the
[LORD MAUGHAM referred to In re a Bankruptcy Notice.F10]
There have been cases in this country on the question whether there can be an estoppel which in any sense overrides a statute, but those cases are not so close as the United States caseF8: Burkinshaw v. NicollsF11; York Corporation v. Henry Leetham & Sons, Ld.F12; Sunderland Corporation v. PriestmanF13; British Mutual Banking Co. v. Charnwood Forest Ry. Co.F14
Sir Robert Aske K.C. and W. L. McNair for the respondents. Bowen L.J. in In re London Celluloid Co.F15 said: “If the company has so acted as to preclude itself from denying that the Act of Parliament has been complied with — in other words, if it has estopped itself, that is conclusive evidence that the Act of Parliament has been complied with, as against the company; and in such cases, although the Act of Parliament has not in fact been complied with, yet the company must be precluded from saying that it has not, and must be taken to have conclusively admitted that it...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Taiko Plantations Sdn Bhd
-
Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd
... ... machinery on hire to the respondent company for 12 months at an agreed monthly rent, and ... , C.A., could not now be relied on for any general principle governing estoppel in the face of a ... See Maritime Electric Co. Ltd. v. General Dairies Ltd. F36 ... ...
- Ng Ok Ling; Tai Lee Oil Mill Company and Others
-
Re Exchange Securities & Commodities Ltd
... ... Harman J. Estoppel - Representation - Company, by - Investors advised of fictitious profits - ... 23 , C.A. and Maritime Electric Co. Ltd. v. General Dairies Ltd. [ ... ...
-
The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities
...effect of Hedley Byrne [1964] AC 465. 190 See, eg, Green v Daniels (1977) 13 ALR 1. 191 Maritime Electric Co Ltd v General Dairies Ltd [1937] AC 610; [1937] 1 All ER 748 ('Maritime Electric'); Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR 193, 211–16 ('Kurtovic'); K R......
-
Estoppel by Representation in Administrative Law
...CLR 394at434-440. See alsoDawsonJinForanvWight(1989) 168 CLR 385at450; Commonwealth vVerwayen(1990)170 CLR 394at459-460.[1937] AC 610. 92FederalLawRevieuJVolume26undercharging.General Dairiesarguedthatthe electricitycompanyhadrepresentedbyitsconductthatithadbeenchargingthecorrectamount,andw......
