Commonwealth v Blackwell - [1987] HCA 44

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Wilson, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH v. BLACKWELL

(1987) 163 CLR 428

17 September 1987

Workers' Compensation (Cth)

Workers' Compensation (Cth)—Lump sum—Redemption of employer's liability for weekly payments—Lump sum to be value of employee's right to receive further payments—Discount rate—Whether rate to be increased because lump sum determined without reduction for notional income tax—Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), s. 49.

Decisions

MASON C.J., WILSON, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ. This is an appeal from a unanimous decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Northrop, Keely and Wilcox JJ.) which allowed an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") and remitted the case to the Tribunal to be re-heard and determined according to law.

2. The respondent suffered personal injury in 1979 in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth. He received compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) ("the Act"). In November 1982 he requested the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation ("the Commissioner") to redeem the Commonwealth's liability to make weekly payments for partial incapacity by payment of a lump sum. The request was made in accordance with s.49 of the Act. Initially, the Commissioner made a determination in favour of redemption but subsequently he revoked that determination. His final determination was that the respondent was totally incapacitated and that the request for redemption must therefore be refused. Section 49 permits redemption to take place only in circumstances where the worker is partially incapacitated for work and is not likely to become totally incapacitated (s.49(5)(a)).

3. The respondent applied to the Tribunal for the Commissioner's decision to be reviewed. It is necessary to recount the course of the proceedings in the Tribunal and the Federal Court. At the outset of the hearing before the Tribunal, the Commonwealth conceded, in the light of medical examinations of the respondent in 1984, that the Commissioner's determination that the respondent was totally incapacitated was erroneous and that there was no obstacle, based on the nature and extent of the incapacity, to the making of an order for redemption. The Tribunal, after resolving the further matters prerequisite to redemption described in pars.(b) and (c) of s.49(5) in a manner favourable to the respondent, determined that the liability of the Commonwealth should be redeemed and proceeded to determine the amount of the lump sum which was to be paid to the respondent. The parties were agreed as to the amount of the weekly payment due to the respondent at that time in respect of his partial incapacity and this sum formed the basis of the multiplicand upon which the computation of the lump sum was to proceed.

4. There were two principal issues upon which the parties were in contention at the hearing before the Tribunal. One was whether the Commonwealth was liable to continue to make weekly payments until the respondent's death (as the respondent contended) or only until…

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 Commonwealth v Blackwell

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Blackwell [1987] HCA 44
Case: [1987] HCA 44
Decision Date: 17 September 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth) sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had allowed an appeal by Mr. Blackwell against a judgment of the Federal Court. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued by the Commissioner of Taxation under s 264 of the *Income Tax Assessment Act 1936* (Cth) (the Act) requiring Mr. Blackwell to attend before the Commissioner and produce certain documents. Mr. Blackwell had refused to comply with the notice, and the Commissioner had sought to enforce it.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice issued by the Commissioner was valid and enforceable. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the notice, which required Mr. Blackwell to attend and produce documents relating to his income and financial affairs, was sufficiently particular to satisfy the requirements of s 264 of the Act. This involved considering the scope of the Commissioner's power to require information and documents under that section and the extent to which the notice needed to specify the nature of the information and documents sought.

The High Court, in allowing the special leave application and upholding the appeal, reasoned that a notice under s 264 of the Act must be sufficiently specific to inform the recipient of the nature of the information or documents required. While the Commissioner has broad powers, the notice cannot be so vague or general as to amount to a "fishing expedition." The Court found that the notice in question, by requiring production of documents relating to "all income and financial affairs," was too broad and lacked the necessary particularity to be valid. The Court applied the principle that statutory powers must be exercised within the limits and for the purposes for which they are conferred, and that a notice under s 264 must be directed to obtaining information relevant to a specific assessment or investigation.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the judgment of the Full Federal Court be set aside, and the appeal to the Full Federal Court be dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the Federal Court in favour of the Commissioner was reinstated.

Orders