Barton v Commissioner for Motor Transport - [1957] HCA 50

COMMISSIONER FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT Constitutional Law (Cth.)--Freedom of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse-

State statute-Validity-Moneys collected under State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931-1951 in respect of operation of public motor vehicles in course of inter- State trade-Invalidity of statute authorising collection-Claim to recover moneys

SO paid-Defence that action barred by reason of section providing that actions against a commissioner appointed under Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932-1952 or against a person for "anything done" etc. under that Act or under some other Act conferring a power etc. on any such commissioner shall be commenced within one year of accrual-Whether defendant such a commis- sioner-Whether Act under which money paid such an " other Act -Whether action for money had and received is for " anything done "-Retrospective amend- ment to section in 1956 so as to include actions for money had and received- Purported effect to bar recovery of moneys claimed as from date of enactment Validity-Receipt of money on behalf of Crown by officer of Crown-Liability of officer in action for money had and received-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12), S. 92-State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931-1951 (No. 32 of 1931-No. 57 of 1951) (N.S.W.)--Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932- 1956 (No. 31 of 1932-No. 16 of 1956) (N.S.W.), S. 27.

Section 27 of the Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932-1952 (N.S.W.) provides that:-" All actions against any of the Commissioners appointed under this Act or against any person for anything done or omitted or purporting to have been done or omitted under this Act or under any other Act (whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act) which confers or imposes any power, authority, duty or function on any such Commissioner, or in the exercise or performance of any power, authority, duty or function conferred or imposed by any such Act, shall be commenced within one year after the act or omission complained of was committed or made." By S. 5 of the Motor Traffic and Transport (Further Amendment) Act 1956 (N.S.W.), S. 27 was amended by adding the following paragraph:--- " The foregoing provisions of this section shall extend, and shall be deemed always to have extended, to an action for the recovery of moneys which have in fact been paid to or collected by any such Commissioner or person where such payment was made or purported

97 CLR 634

to be made or such collection was effected or purported to be effected under the authority or purported authority of any Act whether or not such Act was valid or effectual to impose or authorise the imposition upon any person of an obligation to pay such moneys or to empower such Commissioner or first-mentioned person to receive or collect the same."

In an action by an inter-State transport operator claiming as money had and received sums of money paid on dates between 4th October 1951 and 12th June 1954 for permits issued in purported pursuance of the State Transport (Co-ordination) Act

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Barton v Commissioner for Motor Transport and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1957] HCA 50
Decision Date: 11 July 1957

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Barton v Commissioner for Motor Transport*, the High Court of Australia considered a claim by an interstate transport operator seeking to recover moneys paid for permits issued under the *State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931* (NSW). The plaintiff argued that these payments were invalid due to s 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which guarantees freedom of interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse. The defendant, the Commissioner for Motor Transport, contended that the action was barred by s 27 of the *Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932* (NSW), which imposed a one-year limitation period for actions against commissioners or persons acting under that Act or other specified Acts.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: firstly, whether the Commissioner for Motor Transport qualified as a "Commissioner appointed under" the *Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932* or a person acting under that Act or another specified Act, such that s 27 would apply to bar the plaintiff's claim; and secondly, whether a retrospective amendment to s 27 in 1956, which explicitly extended its provisions to actions for the recovery of moneys paid under colour of statutory authority, was valid and applicable to the plaintiff's claim, particularly in light of s 92 of the Constitution.

A majority of the High Court (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Webb, and Kitto JJ) held that the action was not barred by s 27 of the *Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932*. Their reasoning was that the Commissioner for Motor Transport was not appointed under that specific Act, but rather under subsequent legislation. Furthermore, the Court found that the Commissioner had acted under the *State Transport (Co-ordination) Act 1931*, which did not confer powers on a commissioner appointed under the *Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932*. Consequently, the Commissioner did not fall within the scope of s 27 as it originally stood. The majority also found that the 1956 amendment to s 27, which sought to retrospectively bar such claims, was invalid in its application to causes of action that had already accrued more than twelve months prior to its enactment, for reasons consistent with previous decisions concerning the retrospective barring of claims under s 92 of the Constitution.

The Court ordered that the questions in the special case be answered in accordance with these findings, effectively allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed as it was not barred by the relevant limitation provisions.

Orders