Commonwealth v Mewett

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by the Commonwealth of Australia against decisions of the Federal Court concerning claims for damages brought by injured employees. The dispute centred on whether the Commonwealth was liable for common law damages for injuries sustained by its employees, particularly in circumstances where statutory compensation schemes might otherwise apply, and whether such claims were barred by limitation periods.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: first, the extent to which the Commonwealth, as the Crown, was subject to suit in contract and tort, and whether this liability was affected by Chapter III of the Constitution; second, whether the statutory removal of a right of action for common law damages constituted an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution; and third, the application of limitation statutes, including whether a statute-barred cause of action constituted "property" and the principles governing the choice of applicable law for limitation periods in cases involving injuries sustained in different jurisdictions.

The Court reasoned that the historical immunity of the Crown in tort had been abrogated by statute and by implication from the Constitution, particularly sections 75 and 78, which confer original jurisdiction on the High Court in matters involving the Commonwealth. It was held that section 44(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) did not, in the circumstances, effect an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, as it did not extinguish a cause of action but rather removed a remedy. The Court also addressed the application of State limitation statutes, confirming that under sections 79 and 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the procedural law of the State where the court is held, including its limitation statutes, would generally apply. The Court distinguished between the extinguishment of a right and the barring of a remedy, noting that the latter does not necessarily involve an acquisition of property.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.