Workers' Compensation—Commonwealth employees—Injury by accident arising out of the employment—Disease "due to the nature of the employment in &hich the employee was engaged"—Coronary sclerosis and myocardial degeneration—Effect of worry and anxiety arising from employment as an investigation officer in Taxation Department—Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 (Cth), ss. 9 (1), 10 (1) (b).
Decisions
1960, May 19. The following written judgments were delivered: - DIXON C.J. This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the County Court at Melbourne exercising federal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction exercised is that conferred by s. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956. The order appealed from allowed an appeal by the widow of Charles William Bourne, an investigating officer of the Taxation Department, from a determination of the Delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation rejecting her claim for compensation in respect of her husband's death. Her appeal was upheld by Judge Rapke in the County Court at Melbourne on the ground that Bourne's death had been caused by a disease and the disease was due to the nature of the employment in which he was engaged by the Commonwealth. This ground is to be found in s. 10 (1) (b) of the Act, which provides as follows - "Where (a) . . . (b) the death of an employee is caused by a disease, and the disease is due to the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act as if the disease were a personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment." In s. 4 (1) the word "disease" is defined to include any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition, whether of sudden or gradual development, and also to include the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing disease. (at p36)
2. Bourne died on Sunday, 19th January 1958, at Dromana at the age of fifty-one years, the cause of death according to a post mortem report, being coronary sclerosis and myocardial degeneration. He and his family were accustomed to go to Dromana for holidays and on Friday, 17th January, he commenced his annual leave and on Saturday went with his wife and children to stay at a guest house. After a walk in the evening he went to bed. In the early hours he was seized with a great pain in the chest and shortly afterwards collapsed and died. (at p36)
3. It does not appear that his heart condition was recognized in his lifetime but his wife and his companions noticed a change in him in the middle of the year and a progressive deterioration. He complained that physically he became very tired and felt run-down and was getting worse. He spoke…
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 Bourne
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth v Bourne [1960] HCA 26
Case
[1960] HCA 26
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth of Australia (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had quashed an indictment against the respondent, Bourne. The dispute concerned the validity of the indictment, which alleged that Bourne had committed an offence under section 233B(1)(b) of the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth) by importing prohibited imports.
The High Court was required to determine whether the indictment was valid and, in particular, whether the description of the prohibited imports in the indictment was sufficiently particular to satisfy the requirements of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the common law. The core legal issue was whether the indictment, by referring to "prohibited imports" without specifying the particular prohibited imports, was legally sufficient to support a criminal prosecution.
The Court, in a joint judgment, held that the indictment was invalid. Their Honours reasoned that while section 233B(1)(b) of the *Customs Act* creates a single offence of importing prohibited imports, the indictment must nevertheless specify with sufficient particularity the nature of the prohibited imports. This is to ensure that the accused is adequately informed of the charge against them and can prepare a defence. The Court found that the indictment failed to provide this necessary particularity, rendering it defective.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to quash the indictment.