Legal Research
Cases
Miller v Commonwealth

Miller v Commonwealth

Case [1904] HCA 34 8 November 1904

Statutory Construction

Judicial Review

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

1 CLR 668

with the case on appeal. Claiming credit for merely ordinary

prudence, I should not have considered myself in any danger if I had come into Court with any two of the counsel who held briefs for the respondent. (No. 2).

Now, as to the copying of the briefs. This part of the claim of costs is not insisted on with respect to two of the briefs. As to the third brief, the claim fails with the failure of the portion relating to third counsel, and therefore I do not disturb the Registrar's finding in that respect.

As the application has failed, the costs must fall upon the applicant. Also, they must be set off against his costs of the appeal.

Application dismissed with costs. Costs of

the application to be set off against the general costs of appeal. Solicitor for the respondent (applicant), Mark Mitchell. Solicitor for the appellant (respondent in this application), The Crown Solicitor of New South Wales.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] E. D. MILLER

THE COMMONWEALTH The Public Service Act 1900 (Victoria) (No. 1721), sec. 19-Public servant-Salary

Sec. 19 of the Public Service Act 1900 (Victoria) which provides that "From MELBOURNE,

the commencement of this Act every officer of the Trade and Customs, Defence, and Post and Telegraph Departments shall be entitled to receive a salary equal to the highest salary then payable to an officer of corresponding position in any Australian colony," only entitled such an officer to receive a present salary equal to the highest salary which, on the day the Act came into force, was then actually payable

1 CLR 669

to an officer of corresponding position, &., and did not entitle such officer to increases of salary which, under the law then in force in the particular colony, might thereafter from time to time become payable to an officer of corresponding position.

QUESTIONS of law referred to the Full Court. In an action brought by Edwin Derness Miller against the Commonwealth, the statement of claim was, SO far as is material, as follows:-

.6 1. The plaintiff was on the 28th day of February, 1901, and at all times material prior thereto an officer of the Post and Telegraph Department of the Public Service of the State of Victoria, and on the said 28th day of February, 1901, and at all times material prior thereto, discharged the duties of a letter carrier in the said department within the said State.

"2. On the said 28th day of February, 1901, the plaintiff was entitled by virtue of the Public Service Acts of the State of Victoria to receive a salary in respect of his services as such officer at the rate of £100 per annum.

" 3. On the 1st day of March, 1901, the said Post and Telegraph Department became transferred to the Commonwealth.

4. On the 1st day of March, 1901, the plaintiff as such officer as aforesaid became subject to the control of the Executive Government of the…

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 Miller v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Miller v Commonwealth [1904] HCA 34
Case: [1904] HCA 34
Decision Date: 8 November 1904

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Miller v Commonwealth*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the salary entitlements of a public servant under the *Public Service Act 1900* (Victoria). The case involved the interpretation of provisions relating to salary increments for officers within the public service.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, Mr. Miller, was entitled to receive annual increments to his salary as prescribed by the Act, notwithstanding certain administrative decisions or practices that had been applied to his remuneration. The Court had to determine the proper construction of section 19 of the *Public Service Act 1900* and its application to the appellant's circumstances.

The Court reasoned that section 19 of the Act established a clear entitlement to annual increments for public servants, subject to the conditions outlined therein. Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ. held that the statutory provisions mandated the payment of these increments unless specific grounds for withholding them were established, which were not demonstrated in this instance. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing public service salaries and rejected arguments that sought to limit these entitlements based on administrative discretion or practice that was inconsistent with the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the Court ordered that the appellant was entitled to the salary increments claimed.

Orders