Workers' Compensation (Cth)—Commonwealth employees—Injury—Non-fatal coronary occlusion—Injury by accident arising in course of employment—Later fatal occlusion—Evidence as to effect of earlier occlusion—Finding that death resulted from earlier occlusion not justified—Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956, s. 9 (1), First Schedule cl. (1) (a).
Decisions
December 12. The following written judgments were delivered:- DIXON C.J. In my opinion this appeal should be allowed. I have had an opportunity of reading the reasons prepared respectively by Fullagar J., Taylor J., and Windeyer, J., and I have nothing to add to them. They cover the case completely. (at p468)
FULLAGAR J. This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Moore, sitting as a Judge of County Courts at Melbourne. He had before him a claim by Elvee Margaret Butler, the widow of Kenneth Kendall Butler deceased, for compensation under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956. The matter came before his Honour by way of appeal under s. 20 of the Act from a decision of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. His Honour made an award in favour of the claimant and her infant daughter, and the Commonwealth appeals to this Court. His Honour was exercising federal jurisdiction, and the appeal lies by virtue of s. 39 (2)(b) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 (Cth) and s. 74 of the County Court Act 1928 (Vict.): see The Commonwealth v. Anderson (1957) 97 CLR 345 ; Goward v. The Commonwealth (1957) 97 CLR 355 . (at p468)
2. The only relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act are contained in s. 9(1) and the first schedule. Section 9(1) provides: "If personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth is caused to an employee, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this Act." Clause (1) of the first schedule provides for the amount or rate of compensation to be paid (a) "where the death of the employee results from the injury", and (b) where the employee is totally or partially incapacitated for work by the injury. (at p468)
3. The deceased man was at all material times employed as a clerk in the Department of the Navy. He died on 12th July 1957 as the result of a coronary occlusion. He had suffered in the course of the preceding five years or thereabouts three attacks of a similar nature, and it is necessary to refer briefly to the circumstances of each of the four occlusions, the last of which was fatal. (at p469)
4. The first occasion was in April 1952. It would appear that before this date the health of the deceased had appeared to be normal, but on a day in that month he complained in the morning that he had been awake during the night with a…
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 Butler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth v Butler [1958] HCA 56
Case
[1958] HCA 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth of Australia sought to recover from Mr. Butler a sum of money it had paid to him by mistake. The dispute concerned whether Mr. Butler was legally obliged to repay the mistaken payment, which arose from an error in calculating his entitlement to a pension. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth was entitled to recover money paid under a mistake of fact, notwithstanding that the recipient had no knowledge of the mistake and had acted in good faith. Specifically, the Court had to consider the application of the common law principles governing recovery of money paid by mistake, and whether any equitable considerations or statutory provisions altered this position.
The High Court held that the common law right to recover money paid by mistake of fact is not defeated by the recipient's lack of knowledge or good faith. The Court affirmed the principle that where money is paid under a mistake of fact, the payer is entitled to recover it, unless the payee has, in reliance on the payment, changed their position in such a way that it would be inequitable to require repayment. In this instance, the Court found that Mr. Butler had not demonstrated any change of position that would render repayment inequitable.
The High Court ordered that the Commonwealth was entitled to recover the sum paid to Mr. Butler by mistake.