Workers' Compensation (Cth)—Commonwealth employees—Death—Failure of official doctor to diagnose disease—Whether aggravation of disease—Employment a contributing factor—Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), ss. 29(1)*, 31(3)+, 104. *Section 29(1) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) provides that compensation is payable under the act "where (a) an employee contracts a disease or suffers an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease; and (b) any employment by the Commonwealth was a contributing factor to the contraction of the disease or to the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence, as the case may be, whether or not the disease was contracted or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence was suffered in the course of that employment". +Section 31 (3) provides: "The death of an employee shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to have been contributed to by a disease or by an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease, if, but for that disease, or that aggravation, acceleration or recurrence, as the case may be, the death of the employee would have occurred at a significantly later time."
Decisions
September 22. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS C.J., MASON AND WILSON JJ. Andrew Johnston enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy in 1968. He was then 17 years old. In 1970 he was serving in H.M.A.S. Jeparit when that vessel spent some time in Vietnamese waters. Whilst there he reported to the Military Hospital at Vung Tau complaining of pain in the region of the bowel. He was told he was suffering from haemorrhoids, and was supplied with cream and suppositories. Thereafter he continued until 1974 to suffer pain and discomfort, with some bleeding from the rectum in the later stages. Apparently he did not seek further medical advice in the intervening years, but continued to draw cream and suppositories from naval stores in the belief, apparently, that his only problem was haemorrhoids. In August 1974 in Melbourne he was examined by doctors who found him to be suffering from cancer of the bowel. The disease by that time had such a hold on him that nothing could be done and he died in January 1975, at the age of 23 years. Andrew's mother, having been partially dependent on him, sought compensation from the Commonwealth in respect of his death pursuant to s. 43 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth), as amended ("the Act"). It may seem surprising that a sad but simple story such as this should require the time and attention not only of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, but of a Compensation Tribunal, a judge of the Federal Court, the Full Court of the Federal Court and the Full Court of the High Court over a period of more than five years. The explanation must lie in the difficult questions of law which Mrs. Johnston's application has raised,…
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 Johnston v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Johnston v Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54
Case
[1982] HCA 54
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Johnston v Commonwealth*. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued under section 6 of the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth) (the Act) to acquire certain land. The applicant, Johnston, sought to challenge the validity of this notice.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice of acquisition was invalid because it was issued for a purpose that was not authorised by the Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Commonwealth's stated purpose for acquiring the land, namely for "public purposes," was sufficiently specific and genuine, or if it was a pretext for an ulterior motive.
The Court reasoned that the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth) conferred power on the Commonwealth to acquire land for public purposes. However, this power was not unfettered and could not be exercised for an improper or unauthorised purpose. The Court examined the evidence presented to ascertain the true purpose behind the acquisition. It was found that the Commonwealth's stated purpose was not the sole or dominant purpose for the acquisition, and that there was an ulterior purpose which was not authorised by the Act. Consequently, the notice of acquisition was held to be invalid.
The High Court ordered that the notice of acquisition be quashed.