The 1953 Snowden & Willson Royal Commission: A Housing Scandal in Post-War WA

During the early 1950s, Western Australia was in the grip of a housing crisis. Families desperate for a roof over their heads often had no choice but to sign whatever contracts builders placed in front of them. With this in mind, the building firm Snowden & Willson became the subject of one of the most controversial inquiries in WA’s post-war history.

In December 1952, the State Government called a Royal Commission to investigate allegations from nine homebuyers who claimed they’d been misled, overcharged and pressured by the company. What the inquiry uncovered painted a grim picture of how ordinary people were treated, during one of the tightest housing markets the State had ever seen. The 1953 Royal Commission into Snowden & Willson would take place over 32 days between January and March, with a final report tabled in April.

Families navigate the challenges of the post-war housing crisis in Western Australia, moving their belongings to temporary accommodation.

The contracts: unfair clauses hidden in fine print

At the heart of the complaints were two clauses in Snowden & Willson’s contracts:

Clause 6 – The “rise and fall” clause: This allowed the company to increase the house price to cover any rises in labour or material costs during construction. On paper, this sounded reasonable. Building costs were volatile in the post-war years but Snowden & Willson applied it in an unusually severe way. Instead of calculating from the date buyers signed the contract, they backdated increases to when plans were first lodged. Buyers often ended up paying hundreds of pounds extra, even though they thought they’d signed a contract for a fixed price.

Clause 11 – The cancellation clause: This gave Snowden & Willson the right to walk away from the deal, even after buyers had signed. While rarely used to cancel contracts, it became a powerful threat. Purchasers were told in blunt terms: if they didn’t accept the company’s bills or sign “satisfaction” letters, the builder could invoke Clause 11 and resell the house to someone else.

In modern Australian building contracts, Clause 11 typically refers to the cooling-off period or to provisions dealing with delays and extensions of time. It can also set out the mandatory warranties builders must provide, such as ensuring the work is carried out properly and professionally.

These clauses meant Snowden & Willson had almost total control, while the buyer bore all the risk.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the allegations concerning the conduct of Snowden & Willson. This inquiry aimed to ensure accountability and transparency in the actions of the individuals and entities involved

 The human impact: nine families, one pattern

The Commission heard from nine different complainants and while each case had its own details, a clear pattern emerged:

• Buyers were verbally assured that any extra charges would be “small” or “standard.”

• When the houses were finished, they were presented with much larger bills, inflated with extras that should have been included in the initial price.

• In some cases, Snowden & Willson refused to hand over the keys until buyers signed letters stating they were satisfied with the final account.

• Whenever a purchaser questioned the figures, the company waved Clause 11 like a stick… sign, pay or risk losing your house.

To justify the extra charges, Managing Director Clarence Hufton Snowden produced “pro forma” statements, reconstructed financial schedules that he claimed showed how costs were calculated. When subcontractors and other records were examined, his numbers often didn’t add up. The Commissioner was especially critical of Snowden’s destruction of original receipts and the manner in which figures were doctored to support the company’s position.

The Commission’s findings

Supreme Court Judge, Justice Virtue, who led the Royal Commission, found the complainants to be honest and credible. He concluded that Snowden & Willson’s practices were unfair, misleading and deliberately weighted against the purchaser:

• The rise & fall clause was applied in a way that left buyers with no real protection.

• Clause 11 was used as a threat and intimidation tactic to silence objections.

• The pro forma accounts were unreliable and in some cases misleading.

• The contracts as a whole created what the Commissioner called a “gross imbalance” in bargaining power.

In short, Snowden & Willson’s methods weren’t just smart business. They were a form of exploitation during a housing shortage when families were desperate.

Consequences and Outcomes

The Royal Commission was a fact-finding inquiry, not a court. It couldn’t order Snowden & Willson to repay money or compensate buyers, nor was the company criminally charged as a result of the inquiry. Instead, its reputation suffered heavily, and the report was tabled in Parliament for the public to see.

A later development heard in the High Court in 1958, involved the company trying to claim its legal expenses from the inquiry as a tax deduction. That case, while legally interesting, did nothing to resolve the grievances of the original buyers.

Two of the nine complainants took Snowden & Willson to court in November of that same year, suing for damages in connection with a ‘rise and fall’ building clause. Little information can be found about the judgment that was ultimately handed down.

A typical example of a late 1940s post-war home in Western Australia, featuring simple architectural lines, timber cladding and a modest front yard.

 Policy changes and the bigger picture

While the inquiry didn’t bring direct relief to the victims, it helped shine a spotlight on the need for fairer housing contracts. The State Government came under pressure to tighten oversight and stop other builders from using similar tactics. In the years following, several measures were pushed:

• Greater scrutiny of “rise and fall” clauses, including rules about when they could apply and how costs had to be calculated.

• Restrictions on cancellation rights, so builders couldn’t simply walk away while buyers were locked in.

• Moves towards fairer, standardised housing contracts under the State Housing Commission.

• Strengthening of the Builders’ Registration Act (1939) and its Board, to allow closer supervision and discipline of builders engaging in unfair practices.

These reforms were incremental but they planted seeds that later grew into much stronger consumer protections. By the late 20th century, WA had laws like the Home Building Contracts Act (1991), which gave buyers statutory rights and outlawed the kinds of contract tricks Snowden & Willson had used in the 1950s.

Snowden & Willson Pty Ltd lasted until 1984, when a notice of liquidation was posted on 31 October.