Carey v The Commonwealth - [1921] HCA 54

132 HIGH COURT

[ 1921.

H. C. OF A.

costs in Local Court and in Supreme Court.

1921. Respondents to repay to appellant the amount

F a r m e r s’

of any costs actually paid by appellant to

M e r c a n t il e

U n io n a n d

respondents under the orders of Local Court

Ch a f f M ills

L t d .

and Supreme Court; appellant to pay to

V. respondents their costs of the appeal to High

COADE.

Court pursuant to its undertaking. Set-off of costs ordered to be repaid.

Solicitors for the appellant, Unmack <& Unmack.

Solicitors fcr the respondents, Villeneuve Smith & KeaXl.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CAREY

P l .4intiff ;

AGAINST

THE COMMONWEAI.TH

D e f e n d a n t .

H.C. OF A. Public Service (Commonwealth)—Officer—Appointment—Determination—Contract

1921.

betiveen Commonwealth and officer.

Me l b o u r n e ,Subject to any statute to the contrary, the King has the right to terminate

Nov. 29, 30;

the appointment of his servant at pleasure and without cause, even though

Dec. 5.

the appointment is for a term of years.

Dunn V. The Queen, (1896) 1 Q.B., 116, followed.

Higgins J.

Gould V. Stuart, (1896) A.C., 575, distinguished.

The relation between the Crown and its servant involves a contract.

Hearing of action.

An action was brought in the High Court by Henry Ernest Carey against the Commonwealth to recover damages for the wrongful

30 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

133

dismissal of the jilaintiff from the office of Director of the Northern H- C.

o f a .

Territory, and a certain sum for travelling and house allowance

until he was dismissed.

Ca r e y

The material facts are stated in the judgment hereunder of xhb Ĉom- Higgins J., by whom the action was heard. M O N V VEALTH .

Morleij and Chjiie, for the plaintiff.

Latham and Owen Dixon, for the defendant.

Cur. adv. vult.

H iggins J. delivered the following written judgm ent:—This is an action for wrongful dismissal, and for travelling and house allowances before dismissal. The plaintiff was appointed Director of the Northern Territory “ for a period of three years from 1st August 1919 at a salary of £1,000 per annum with quarters.” According to a letter from the Home and Territories Department dated 9th August 1919, and enclosing a copy of the Executive minute of appointment (30th July 1919), the Minister fixed the rate of travelling allowance at £1 per day when absent from Darwin within the Territory, and £1 os. per day when outside the Territory. The plaintiff, ^vith two other officials, left Darwin “ unwillingly ” on 19th October 1919 in the We.st Australian steamer Bambra ; and at the port of W}mdham, Western Australia, received instructions from the Minister, by radio-telegram, 22nd October, to proceed in the Bambra to Fremantle ; and there he was instructed by the Minister to proceed to…

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.

Continue reading Carey v The Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Carey v The Commonwealth [1921] HCA 54
Case: [1921] HCA 54
Decision Date: 5 December 1921

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Carey v The Commonwealth*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the applicant, Carey, and the respondent, The Commonwealth. The core of the disagreement concerned alleged breaches of an industrial award.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth was entitled to refuse to produce certain information and documents sought by Carey, which were relevant to the alleged award breaches. This involved an examination of the scope of an employer's obligation to provide information in the context of industrial arbitration and potential breaches of awards.

The Court reasoned that the Industrial Arbitration Act 1911 (NSW) conferred broad powers upon the Arbitration Court to compel the production of evidence. It held that the Commonwealth, as an employer bound by the award, could not arbitrarily withhold information relevant to the enforcement of that award. The principle applied was that the effective administration of industrial law and the resolution of disputes necessitated a cooperative approach to the disclosure of relevant information, subject to any specific statutory protections or privileges which were not established in this instance.

The High Court ultimately ordered that the Commonwealth was not entitled to refuse production of the information and documents sought by Carey.

Orders