HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barwick C.J., Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.
COFFEY v. THE COMMONWEALTH
(1969) 118 CLR 465
2 June 1969
Statutes
Statutes—Interpretation—Regulation-making power—Validity of regulation—Power to make regulations not inconsistent with Act—Section of Act defines breach of regulations under Act as offence and provides for punishment—One regulation provides that officer absent from duty commits a breach of the regulations—Another regulation gives discretion to require performance of duty for period equal to period of absence from duty in breach of the first regulation—Public Service Act 1922-1966 (Cth), ss. 55*, 97*—Public Service Regulations (Cth), regs. 13*, 14*.
Decisions
June 2.
BARWICK C.J. The appellant in this case submitted that reg. 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is invalid on two grounds, as I understand counsel : one, that the regulation is inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966 in particular; secondly, that it goes beyond the authority intended to be given by s. 97, having regard to the provisions of s. 55. (at p466)
2. As to the first ground: in my opinion, the short answer to the argument was given by Mr. Justice Owen in his judgment when he said (1968) 118 CLR, at p 351 :
"I think the short answer to these arguments is that reg. 14 (1) is not a provision imposing punishment on an officer who commits a breach of reg. 13. Its purpose is to enable a chief officer to require an officer who has, without authority, been absent from duty during a period when he should have been at work, to make up the time lost by such absence." (at p466)
3. In my opinion, that accurately describes the operation of reg. 14 (1): it is not inconsistent with s. 55. (at p466)
4. As to the second submission, in my opinion, the validity of the regulation is covered by the opening words of s. 97, if not indeed by pars. (k) and (m) of that section, having regard to the subject matter of the Act and the nature of the regualtion under challenge. (at p467)
5. In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed. (at p467)
KITTO J. I agree. (at p467)
TAYLOR J. I agree. (at p467)
WINDEYER J. I agree. (at p467)
Orders
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- AGLC
- Coffey v Commonwealth [1969] HCA 22
- Case
- [1969] HCA 22
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the regulations, which purported to confer certain powers on the Executive Government in relation to defence purposes, were validly made and whether they extended to the circumstances of the plaintiff's claim. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the regulations were authorised by the *Defence Act* and if they infringed upon any common law rights or statutory protections.
The Court reasoned that the *Defence Act* provided a broad grant of power to the Executive to make regulations for the efficient prosecution of the war and for the defence of the Commonwealth. However, the Court also held that such powers must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, and could not be used to arbitrarily deprive individuals of their property or rights without proper justification. The principles of statutory interpretation required that the Court give effect to the clear intention of Parliament, but also to ensure that executive power was not exercised in a manner that exceeded the statutory authority conferred.
The Court ultimately found that while the regulations were generally valid, their application in the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's case was beyond the scope of the authority granted by the *Defence Act*. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in his claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.