Legal Research
Cases
Cuthbertson v Hobart Corporation

Cuthbertson v Hobart Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 24 November 1921 30 min read

Contents

On this page

30 CLR 16

CUTHBERTSON

THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND CITIZENS

RESPONDENTS.

OF THE CITY OF HOBART

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Wages Board-Power to appoint-Validity of determination-" Trade Occupa-

tion or calling "-Clerks to municipal councils-Wages Boards Act 1910 (Tas.) (1 Geo. v. No. 62), secs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 20, 30, 31B, 33, 52, 64 Wages Boards MELBOURNE,

Act 1913 (Tas.) (4 Geo. v. No. 46), sec. -Wages Boards Act 1917 (Tas.) (7 Geo. Oct. 5, 6.

V. No. 63), sec. 5-Wages Boards Act 1920 (Tas.) (11 Geo. v. No. 51), secs. 5, 9, 10, 62-Factories Act 1910 (Tas.) (1 Geo. v. No. 57), secs. 17, 62. SYDNEY,

Practice-High Court-Appeal from Supreme Court of State-Special leave-To

whom granted-Person who might be party to proceedings in State Court Judiciary Act 1903-1920 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 38 of 1920), sec. 35.

By sec. 52 of the Wages Boards Act 1910 (Tas.) it is provided that a person desiring to challenge or dispute a determination of a wages board for the illegality thereof may apply to the Supreme Court for a rule calling upon the board to show cause why such determination should not be quashed, and that no determina- tion of a board shall be in any other manner challenged or disputed for the illegality thereof. By sec. 5 of the Wages Boards Act 1920 (Tas.) the Wages Boards Act 1910 is repealed; by sec. 9 all wages boards appointed under the Act of 1910 are abolished; and by sec. 10 it is provided that " (1) Every deter- mination of a wages board appointed under the Wages Boards Act 1910, and in existence at the commencement of this Act shall continue in full force and effect until it is abolished by the Governor by proclamation vided, however, that upon the coming into force of any determination of a wages board under this Act all persons to whom such determination is applic- able shall cease to be affected by any determination of a wages board appointed under the Wages Boards Act 1910, and shall thenceforth be subject to the determination made under this Act and applicable to such persons."

30 CLR 17

Held, by Knox C.J., Higgins and Starke JJ., that a person entitled to the benefit of such a determination might properly be made a party to proceedings instituted after the Act of 1920 had come into operation, to quash the deter- mination, and, therefore, the Supreme Court having quashed the determina- tion, that special leave might be granted to such a person to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court.

The Wages Boards Act 1910 provides, by sec. 4, that the word "trade" includes, unless inconsistent with the context, any process, business, occupa- tion, or calling" and, by sec. 5, that the Governor shall appoint wages boards " (1.) in respect of the preparation and manufacture of clothing and wearing apparel: and (II.) for any other trades or any groups or parts in respect whereof…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cuthbertson v Hobart Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1921] HCA 51
Decision Date: 24 November 1921

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Cuthbertson v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Hobart* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, Harry Cecil Cuthbertson, was an employee of the Hobart City Council who stood to benefit from a determination made by the Municipal and Marine Board Clerks' Wages Board. The respondents, the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Hobart, had sought and obtained a rule absolute from the Supreme Court of Tasmania to quash this determination. Special leave to appeal to the High Court was granted to Cuthbertson, despite not being a formal party to the original proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether Cuthbertson, as a person entitled to the benefit of the wages board determination, could be granted special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court's decision to quash that determination. Secondly, and more substantively, the Court was required to determine whether the Governor of Tasmania had the legal power under the *Wages Boards Act 1910* (Tas.) to appoint a wages board to fix the rates for clerks employed by municipal councils and marine boards, and consequently, whether the determination made by such a board was valid.

The High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Higgins and Starke JJ., held that special leave to appeal was rightly granted to Cuthbertson. They reasoned that while he was not a formal party, he had a direct interest in the determination and could have been made a party to the proceedings in the Supreme Court, thus satisfying the criteria for granting leave to appeal. On the substantive issue, the Court found that the Supreme Court of Tasmania had erred in quashing the determination. The High Court interpreted the *Wages Boards Act 1910* and its associated legislation broadly, concluding that the definition of "trade" encompassed occupations such as those of municipal and marine board clerks. They found that the legislative intent, particularly as evidenced by specific provisions within the Acts, supported the power to appoint such a board and make a valid determination, which remained in force until abolished or superseded under the subsequent *Wages Boards Act 1920*.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and upholding the validity of the Municipal and Marine Board Clerks' Wages Board determination.

Orders