Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 6 March 1942
Page: 255

Dr EVATT - A statement was made on that subject by my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service, after the Government had been asked to pass national security regulations to provide that deposits and payments in respect of holiday accommodation should be refundable after the holiday regulations were issued, and that was done. Later, regulations were also issued which imposed lighting restrictions which in turn interfered with the performance of a number of contracts in relation to Neon lighting. ' It was subsequently represented to the Government that relief should 'be given in respect of these and other contracts. The Government was of the opinion that it would be wrong to pass regulation after regulation to deal with these contracts piecemeal. Regulations were therefore passed dealing comprehensively with the whole subject of interference with the performance of contracts by reason of the operation of national security regulations. It is competent for any person to apply for relief respecting the payment of deposits, and the like, in relation to contracts which have not been performed through the operation of national security regulations. That applies also to refunds of deposits for holiday accommodation.

Mr Calwell - Is it not a fact that at present a person who sent a deposit from Sydney to Melbourne in respect of holiday accommodation would need to go to Melbourne to sue for the return of the money ?

Dr EVATT - In ordinary cases, the return of the deposit, or of a portion of it, would be made by agreement.

Mr Calwell - But what about when the request is refused, as many have been ?

Dr EVATT - In such cases, the matter may be taken to court. The wellrecognized principle in such matters is that the person who sues shall take action in a court of the district of residence of the person from whom the money is demanded. That principle has been followed in the regulations. I do not think that in ordinary cases there should be great difficulty in the parties concerned making an amicable arrangement without having to go to court.

Suggest corrections