Commonwealth v Dalton - [1924] HCA 3

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA DALTON

JUDGMENT CREDITOR,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF REQUESTS OF TASMANIA. Attachment of Debts-Garnishee proceedings-Wages due to employee of Common-

wealth-Jurisdiction of Court of Requests (Tas.)-Local limits of jurisdiction --Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922 (No. 21 of 1922), sec. 64 -Judiciary MELBOURNE,

Act 1903-1920 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 38 of 1920), sec. 39-Local Courts Act 1896 Mar. 11, 12.

(Tas.) (60 Vict., No. 48), secs. 19, 85, 86-Local Courts Amendment Act 1902 (Tas.) (2 Edw. VII., No. 19), secs. 7, 8. Gavan Duffy,

Under sec. 64 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922, which provides that an order for the attachment of the salary, wages or pay of any officer or employee in the Commonwealth Service may be made by any Court of com- petent jurisdiction, such an order may be made by a Court of a State which has jurisdiction to make similar orders as between subject and subject, and there- fore may be made by a Court of Requests of Tasmania.

For the purposes of sec. 39 (2) of the Judiciary Act the Commonwealth is within the limits as to locality of the jurisdiction of a Court of Requests of Tasmania, the jurisdiction of which in attachment proceedings is by sec. 85 of the Local Courts Act 1896 (Tas.) (substituted by sec. 7 of the Local Courts Amendment Act 1902 (Tas.) ) limited to cases where the person indebted to the judgment debtor is within the jurisdiction of the Court.

APPEAL from a Court of Requests of Tasmania.

J. J. Dalton, having obtained a judgment in the Court of Requests at Hobart against T. Fahey, an employee in the Postal Department

33 CLR 453

of the Commonwealth, for a certain sum of which £4 remained unpaid, obtained a garnishee order nisi in that Court for the attachment of all debts due and owing or accruing due from the Commonwealth to Fahey. On the return of the order nisi the Commonwealth took the defence that the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction to make the order against the Commonwealth. The Court of Requests made the order nisi absolute with costs.

From that decision the Commonwealth now appealed to the High Court.

Keating, for the appellant. The words "any Court of competent jurisdiction" in sec. 64 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922 mean any Court which has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings against the Commonwealth, and not any Court which has jurisdiction in garnishee proceedings between subjects. That section should not be construed as a submission by the Commonwealth to inferior Courts of the States. Assuming that the debt is one which the judgment debtor could enforce against the Commonwealth, he could only do SO in the High Court or the Supreme Court (sec. 56 of the Judiciary Act), and it should not be inferred that the intention of the Commonwealth Parliament was, by sec. 64 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, to give to the judgment creditor a wider right than…

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 Dalton

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Dalton [1924] HCA 3
Case: [1924] HCA 3
Decision Date: 12 March 1924

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Requests of Tasmania. The dispute arose when J. J. Dalton, a judgment creditor, obtained a garnishee order nisi against the Commonwealth for the attachment of wages owed to T. Fahey, a Commonwealth employee. The Commonwealth contended that the Court of Requests lacked jurisdiction to make such an order against it.

The High Court was required to determine whether a State Court of Requests, specifically in Tasmania, possessed the competent jurisdiction to issue a garnishee order against the Commonwealth for the attachment of an employee's wages, as provided for under section 64 of the *Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922*. This involved considering the interplay between federal legislation, such as the *Commonwealth Public Service Act* and the *Judiciary Act 1903-1920*, and Tasmanian state legislation, including the *Local Courts Act 1896* and its amendments, particularly concerning the territorial limits of the Court of Requests' jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that section 64 of the *Commonwealth Public Service Act* empowered any "Court of competent jurisdiction" to make attachment orders against Commonwealth employee wages. It was held that this meant a court having the jurisdiction to make similar orders between private individuals. Section 39(2) of the *Judiciary Act* then invested State Courts with federal jurisdiction within the limits of their existing state jurisdiction. The Court found that the Tasmanian Court of Requests was a court competent to make garnishee orders between subjects. Furthermore, it was determined that for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction, the Commonwealth, as a legal entity, could be considered to be present within the geographical limits of a State's courts. Therefore, the requirement that the garnishee be "within the jurisdiction of the Court" was satisfied.

The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court ordered that the costs, as between solicitor and client, be paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to its undertaking.

Orders