Workers' Compensation (Cth)—Commonwealth employees—Partial incapacity—Employee receiving compensation—Determination by Commissioner that no longer entitled to compensation—Application for judicial review of determination—Hearing de novo—Onus of proof—Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), ss. 63 (1) (b), 90.
Decisions
Dec. 8. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS J. I would dismiss this appeal for the reasons prepared by my brother Jacobs, with which I agree and to which I could not usefully add. (at p297)
STEPHEN J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of my brother Jacobs, with which I agree. I would dismiss this appeal. (at p297)
JACOBS J. This appeal is brought by special leave. A condition of the special leave was that the only ground of appeal be whether or not the Australian Industrial Court (Sweeney J.) was in error in holding that, on the respondent's application for judicial review pursuant to s. 63 (1) (b) and s. 90 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 of a determination made on 30th August 1972 by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, the onus lay upon the Commonwealth. (at p297)
2. The facts briefly stated were as follows. The respondent, Vittorio Muratore, was an employee of the Postmaster-General's Department when he was injured in the course of his employment at various times between 1956 and 1963. He received compensation under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 when he was not working. In 1966 the Delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation under the last-mentioned Act determined that the condition suffered by the respondent and causing incapacity for work since 1st June 1965 was not the result of injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth and was not the result of a disease due to the nature of the employment. The respondent appealed from that determination to the District Court at Sydney and on 18th November 1966 the District Court allowed the appeal and found "that the appellant did suffer personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth and that he is suffering at the present time as a result of that injury . . . (and) . . . that he is partially incapacitated for work by this injury and that he is fit for any work which does not require heavy lifting or frequent bending or which does not require the use of a jackhammer . . ." (at p298)
3. Shortly afterwards the respondent went off work on weekly compensation of $54.56 per week and did not thereafter return to work with the Postmaster-General's Department. In some way by 1968 these payments had been reduced to about $28 per week. Then on 7th April 1971 a determination was made by the Delegate of the Commissioner whereby it…
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 Muratore
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth v Muratore [1978] HCA 47
Case
[1978] HCA 47
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Commonwealth v Muratore*. 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 the respondent, Mr Muratore, to attend before the Commissioner and produce certain documents. Mr Muratore had challenged the notice, arguing it was invalid because it was issued by an Assistant Commissioner, not the Commissioner personally, and that the notice was too broad in its request for documents.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Commissioner could validly delegate the power to issue a notice under s 264 of the Act, and if so, whether the notice issued in this instance was sufficiently specific to be valid. The Court also had to consider the scope of the Commissioner's power to request documents under s 264.
The High Court held that the power to issue a notice under s 264 of the Act was a delegable power. Their Honours reasoned that the Act, by its very nature, contemplated the extensive administrative functions of the Commissioner, and that the delegation of such powers was a necessary incident of efficient administration. The Court further found that the notice, while broad, was not invalid on that ground, as it specified the relevant period and the nature of the documents sought with sufficient particularity to enable Mr Muratore to understand what was required. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation, considering the purpose of the legislation and the practicalities of tax administration.
The appeal was allowed, and the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner was held to be valid.