Legal Research
Cases
Commonwealth v Thompson

Commonwealth v Thompson

Case [1960] HCA 28 19 May 1960

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Judicial Review

Constitutional Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., Fullagar, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH v. THOMPSON

(1960) 104 CLR 48

19 May 1960

Workers' Compensation—High Court

Workers' Compensation—Commonwealth employees—Disease—Due to nature of employment in &hich employee engaged—Heart disease—Effect of nature and volume of work arising from employment as Deputy Commissioner of Taxation—Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 (Cth), ss.9, 10 (1) (b). High Court—Claim for compensation by Commonwealth employee—Appeal from District Court (N.S.W.) to High Court—Jurisdiction—Source and nature—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 73 (ii)—Judiciary Act 1903-1955 (Cth), s. 39 (2) (b)—Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 (Cth), s. 20—District Courts Act 1912-1955 (N.S.W.), s. 142.

Decisions

1960, May 19.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
DIXON C.J. This appeal comes from the District Court exercising federal jurisdiction under s. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956. On reconsideration of s. 142 of the District Courts Act 1912-1955 (N.S.W.) and the wide definition of "action" in s. 3 I think that, notwithstanding the doubt I expressed on the point in The Commonwealth v. Wright (3), the appeal given is wide enough to embrace a proceeding under s. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 for the purposes of s. 39 (2) (b) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955, if s. 39 (2) applies, as it was said to do by the Court in Goward v. The Commonwealth (1957) 97 CLR 355, at pp 360, 361 . But whether the appeal comes by that course of procedure or directly under s. 73 (ii) of the Constitution and O. 70 of the Rules of the High Court, the appeal is a full appeal upon fact and law: see The Commonwealth v. Matheson (1955) 93 CLR 403 , per Williams J. (1955) 93 CLR, at p 408 and Wishart v. Fraser (1941) 64 CLR 470, at p 480 . (at p51)

2. The respondent is the widow of F. A. S. Thompson who at the time of his death was Deputy Commissioner of Taxation responsible for the administration in New South Wales of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act of the Commonwealth. He died on 9th July 1958 from what appears to have been a coronary occlusion. As head of the department in Sydney he attended on that day a gathering of the staff to bid farewell to a senior officer on the occasion of that officer's leaving the service, and as he was ending a speech he made he collapsed and died. The medical report made after a post-mortem examination said no more than that the cause of death was disease of the heart, coronary. He had experienced the symptoms of angina pectoris for some time and his condition had been diagnosed early in 1957 as that of coronary sclerosis. (at p51)

3. Section 10 (1) of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 provides that where (a) . . . (b) the death of an employee is caused by a disease and…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Thompson [1960] HCA 28
Case: [1960] HCA 28
Decision Date: 19 May 1960

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia (the applicant) sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondent, Mr. Thompson, had been convicted of an offence under the *Broadcasting and Television Act 1942* (Cth). The dispute concerned the interpretation of certain provisions of that Act, specifically relating to the broadcasting of advertisements.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent's conduct, in broadcasting certain advertisements, constituted a breach of the prohibition against broadcasting advertisements that were not in accordance with the prescribed standards. This involved determining the meaning and scope of "advertisements" and "prescribed standards" within the context of the Act.

The High Court considered the legislative intent behind the *Broadcasting and Television Act* and the purpose of the regulations governing advertisements. It analysed the specific content of the advertisements in question and compared them against the prescribed standards. The Court ultimately found that the advertisements did not contravene the Act as interpreted by the Full Court of South Australia.

Special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders