STEPHEN J. The plaintiff is a girl of sixteen who completed her fourth form school year on 26th November, 1976, at Clarence High School in one of Hobart's eastern shore suburbs. (at p464)
2. During 1976, while still at school, she had discussed with a school guidance officer and others possible employment opportunities. On 25th November, 1976, the day before the end of the school year, she visited a branch office of the Commonwealth Employment Service so that she might register for employment and seek assistance in finding it. She duly registered and some details of her school record were taken. She was told that there was no work available for her and that she should call in again later on when she had received her complete school results. (at p464)
3. She received these results some three weeks later and called again with them at the office of the Service on 20th December, 1976; she was interviewed, was told that no jobs were available and that she could not as yet receive an unemployment benefit because school leavers would not be receiving it until 22nd February, 1977. Details of her school record, as previously recorded, were supplemented and corrected in the light of the examination results she had brought with her. She was handed a printed form of letter from the Department of Social Security, apparently prepared for distribution to those leaving school that year, together with two forms issued by that Department and headed respectively "Record of Applications for Employment" and "First Income Statement". These she was told to bring back, duly completed, on 22nd February, 1977. She then also completed a claim for unemployment benefit. She was then taken to the Department of Social Security where she made application for a Special Benefit available in certain instances to those not entitled to unemployment benefits; however this application was later rejected upon the ground that her mother, a widow, would continue to receive an additional benefit in respect of her until she obtained employment or until 22nd February, 1977, whichever should be the earlier. (at p464)
4. Then, in January 1977, as a result of receiving a letter from the Commonwealth Employment Service, she had a telephone conversation with an officer of the Service in which she was asked whether she had already "registered for unemployment". On hearing that she had, the officer told her, in response to a question, that she need not again visit his office until 22nd February and that she should then bring with her the completed forms she had been given. (at p464)
5. During the months of December, January and February the plaintiff made a number of efforts to secure employment, she responded to advertisements and registered with two private employment agencies but all without success. (at p464)
6. On 22nd February, 1977, she again called at the office of the Commonwealth Employment Service with…
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 Green v Daniels
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Green v Daniels [1977] HCA 18
Case
[1977] HCA 18
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Green v Daniels*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between a landowner, Mr. Green, and the Minister for Lands, Mr. Daniels, concerning the validity of a proclamation made by the Minister under the *Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861* (NSW). The proclamation purported to reserve certain lands for public recreation. Mr. Green, who held an interest in these lands, challenged the legality of the proclamation.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister had the power to make the proclamation under the *Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861* and, if so, whether the proclamation was validly exercised. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Minister's actions were authorised by the relevant provisions of the Act and if the proclamation met the statutory requirements for reserving Crown lands for public purposes.
Stephen J, delivering the judgment, examined the language and intent of the *Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861*. His Honour found that the Act conferred upon the Minister a broad discretion to reserve Crown lands for public recreation. The court held that the Minister's power to proclaim such reservations was not fettered by any requirement to consult with or obtain the consent of existing holders of interests in the land, such as Mr. Green. The proclamation was therefore deemed a valid exercise of the Minister's statutory authority.