for the Board to consider) the amount of money which the parties H. C. OF treated the shares as an equivalent is the amount paid by the taxpayer.
Questions answered as follows :-(1) Yes.
£170,000 was paid within the meaning of the Act and satisfied by the allotment of 170,000 fully paid-up shares. (2) No. (3) Prima facie the paid-up value is the measure of the amount of the payment. Costs of reference to High Court to be paid by Commissioner. Solicitor for the appellant, H. M. Lee. Solicitor for the respondent, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.
OF AUSTRALIA.
LE MESURIER CONNOR
RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT,
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
DISTRICT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Bankruptcy-Constitutional law-Powers of Federal Parliament-Proclamation of
Bankruptcy Districts-Duties of Registrars-To be such as the Federal Attorney- General directs-Volidity--Courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy-Power to invest" such State Courts
as are specially authorized by Governor-General' -Validity-Purported investiture of State Courts-Power to Court to delegate to Registrar powers of administrative nature-Validity-Purported delegation by three Judges-Powers conferred on Registrar-Validity-Agreement between Commonwealth and States as to State officers acting as Registrars-Appointment
of Registrars-Validity-Bankruptcy notice-Power of Registrar 80 appointed to issue-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 (XVII.), (XXXIX.), 77 (III.)-Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928 (No. 37 of 1924-No. 39 of 1928), secs. 12 (1), (5), 18 (1) (b), 23, 24*-Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1924 (No. 21 of 1922-No. 46 of 1924), sec. 78.
Held, by Knox C.J., Rich and Dixon JJ. (Isaacs and Starke JJ. dissenting) :- (1) Sec. 77 (III.) of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to make a Commonwealth officer a functionary of a State Court and authorize him to act on its behalf and administer part of its jurisdiction. (2) Although sec. 51 (XXXIX.) of the Constitution confers power upon the Parliament to make laws with respect to matters which attend, or arise in, the execution of any power vested by the Constitution in the Federal Judicature, as distinct from matters incidental to the subjects assigned to the Commonwealth, nevertheless Federal jurisdiction or of the organization through which its powers and jurisdiction are exercised, because sec. 77 (III) contemplates the selection by the Parliament of an existing judicial organ which depends alike for its structure and its being upon State law and the grant to it of powers of adjudication upon specified subjects of Federal jurisdiction. (3) Quare, whether, within the meaning of sec. 51 (XXXIX.), State Courts invested with Federal jurisdiction form part of the "Federal Judicature " and their jurisdiction is a power "vested by this Constitution." (4) Secs. 12 (5), 23 and 24 of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928 are ultra vires and void. (5) Sec. 18 (1) (b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928, which provides that the Courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy * The Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928 pro-
act done by a Registrar in the exercise vides :-By sec. 12, (1) For the pur-
of his power and jurisdiction shall be poses…
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 Le Mesurier v Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Le Mesurier v Connor [1929] HCA 41
Case
[1929] HCA 41
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Le Mesurier v Connor* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Bankruptcy in Western Australia. The appellant, Le Mesurier, sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice served upon him by the respondent, Connor. The grounds for setting aside the notice included irregularities in the appointment of the Registrar in Bankruptcy who issued the notice, and the purported delegation of judicial power to the Registrar. The validity of various provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928* and their constitutional basis were central to the dispute.
The High Court was required to determine several significant legal issues. These included whether the Parliament had the constitutional power, under section 77(III) of the Constitution, to authorise the Governor-General to empower State Courts to exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction. The Court also considered whether section 51(XVII) of the Constitution, relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, provided sufficient authority for such provisions. Further questions arose regarding the validity of provisions that purported to grant State Courts jurisdiction throughout the Commonwealth, the constitutional validity of making a Federal officer an officer of a State Court and subjecting them to the directions of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, and whether the power to issue bankruptcy notices could be validly delegated to a Registrar.
A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Rich and Dixon JJ., held that section 77(III) of the Constitution does not permit the Parliament to make a Commonwealth officer a functionary of a State Court and authorise them to administer part of its jurisdiction. They found that while section 51(XXXIX) confers power regarding matters incidental to the execution of Federal judicial power, it does not extend to regulating the organisation of State Courts. The Court further held that section 18(1)(b) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1924-1928*, which purports to confer upon the Executive Government a discretionary power to authorise State Courts to exercise Federal jurisdiction, was not a valid "law investing" Federal jurisdiction under section 77(III) and was therefore ultra vires and void. Consequently, sections 12(5), 23 and 24 of the *Bankruptcy Act* were also deemed to be ultra vires and void.
The appeal was allowed, and the bankruptcy notice was set aside. The majority found that the provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act* that purported to integrate Federal officers into the organisation of State Courts and to delegate judicial functions to Registrars were beyond the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament.