Carmody v F C Lovelock Pty Ltd - [1970] HCA 35

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ.

CARMODY v. F.C. LOVELOCK PTY. LTD.

(1970) 123 CLR 1

9 October 1970

Customs—Constitutional Law (Cth)

Customs—Dumping Duty—Validity—Notice of Minister—Power of Commonwealth Parliament to impose duties of customs—Exclusive power of Commonwealth—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 55, 90—Customs Act 1901- 1960 (Cth)—Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961 (Cth), ss. 7*, 16. Constitutional Law (Cth)—Proceedings in State Supreme Court—Removal to High Court—Question as to limits inter se of constitutional power of Commonwealth and States—Inter se question—Exclusive power of Commonwealth—Duties of customs—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 90—Judiciary Act 1903- 1969 (Cth), s. 40A—Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961 (Cth), ss. 7*, 16.

Decisions

October 9.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
BARWICK C.J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this action by my brother Gibbs. The circumstances of the case are there fully set out and need no amplification. With one exception I agree entirely with all the conclusions to which my brother has come, with the reasons which he gives for them and with the orders he proposes. The conclusion with which with great respect I do not agree is that expressed by his Honour in relation to the relationship between the inquiry and report of the Tariff Board and the Minister's satisfaction of the matters specified in pars. (a) and (b) of s. 7 (1) of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961 (Cth). The conclusion is expressed in the following words in his Honour's reasons :

"As I have already said, a notice will only be valid if the Minister had the requisite satisfaction after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. In its context in the section the word 'after' does not mean simply 'following in time' but must have the meaning of 'subsequent to and in consequence of'. The Minister's satisfaction must be casually connected with the inquiry and report of the Tariff Board."

Whilst I agree that the satisfaction of the Minister must be preceded by an inquiry and report of the Tariff Board and that that inquiry and report must be as to the subject matter of the two paragraphs of s. 7 (1) to which I have referred, the Minister's satisfaction need not, in my opinion, be founded exclusively upon that report. It may, in my opinion, be founded on information not derived from the report and indeed, in my opinion, the Minister's opinion as to any of the elements of his satisfaction may be formed despite the conclusions to which the Tariff Board may have come. It is sufficient in my opinion for the validity of the Minister's notice that he has received and considered the report of the Tariff Board on the subject matter of pars. (a) and (b) of s. 7 (1). (at p7)

2. For the rest, having expressed my agreement with the other conclusions,…

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 Carmody v F C Lovelock Pty Ltd 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: [1970] HCA 35
Decision Date: 9 October 1970

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Carmody v F C Lovelock Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Carmody, and the defendant, F C Lovelock Pty Ltd. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it was heard before a bench of distinguished judges including Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh, and Gibbs JJ.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of relevant legal principles governing the parties' rights and obligations. While the precise legal questions are not explicitly stated, the composition of the bench suggests a matter of significant legal importance, likely involving common law principles or statutory interpretation.

The reasoning of the court, and the legal principles it applied, would have been based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented and relevant legal authorities. The judges would have considered established precedents and any applicable legislation to arrive at their determination. The detailed judgment would have articulated the legal framework guiding their decision.

The final orders or outcome of the case are not provided in the excerpt.

Orders