Crown—Commonwealth—Tort—Negligence—Defence Forces—Act of member of defence force in peace time—Injury to civilian—Whether Commonwealth liable. Damages—Assessment—Lord Campbell's Act (Vict.)—Pension under Superannuation Act 1922-1959 (Cth)—Whether amount attributable to entitlement to pension deductible from amount of damages awarded to dependants—Wrongs Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 19. High Court—Action against Commonwealth—Tort—Personal injury—Act on high seas—Whether admiralty or ordinary jurisdiction—Action heard in Victoria—Law applicable—Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 &54 Vict. c. 27), (Imp.)—Judiciary Act 1903-1960 (Cth), ss. 79, 80.
Decision
March 30. WINDEYER J. delivered the following written judgment: - On 10th February 1964, at night time, two ships of the Royal Australian Navy, the aircraft carrier H.M.A.S. Melbourne and a destroyer H.M.A.S. Voyager, came into collision on the high seas some twenty miles off the Australian coast. The ships were exercising together. The Melbourne struck the Voyager and she sank. Some men were drowned. One of those in the Voyager who lost his life was Horace Stanley Parker. His widow who is the executrix of his will, suing on behalf of herself and a child, brings this action against the Commonwealth, claiming damages on the basis that her husband's death was caused by the negligence of the officers and crew of the two ships and of other servants of the Commonwealth. (at p298)
2. The action was commenced in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. But in 1939 Parliament repealed s. 30 (b) of the Judiciary Act and since that date the sole source of the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court has been the Imperial Act, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. The jurisdiction thus derived is the same as that which in England the High Court of Justice had in its Admiralty jurisdiction in 1890: see Nagrint v. The "Regis" (1939) 61 CLR 688 and F. Kanematsu &Co. Ltd. v. The Ship "Shahzada" (1956) 96 CLR 477, and the discussions of this topic by Professor Cowen in his work Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1959) pp. 57-65 and by Doctor Wynes in his Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia, 3rd ed. (1962) pp. 623-627. Until the enactment of the Maritime Convention Act, 1911 (Imp.), actions for loss of life could not be brought in the Admiralty jurisdiction in England: Seward v. The "Vera Cruz" (1884) 10 App Cas 59 The plaintiff's rights are therefore it seems no greater, perhaps rather less, in an action in the Admiralty jurisdiction than they would be in an ordinary action in the original jurisdiction of the Court. I propose therefore to consider the case as if it were an ordinary action at law: see Huddart Parker Ltd. v. The Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 (at p298)
3. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the statement of claim are as follows: "12. (a) By reason of the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and of ss. 56 and 64 of the Judiciary…
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 Parker v The Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Parker v The Commonwealth [1965] HCA 12
Case
[1965] HCA 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Parker v The Commonwealth*, Windeyer J of the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the validity of a notice to produce documents issued under the *Royal Commissions Act 1902* (Cth). The applicant, Mr Parker, sought to challenge the notice, arguing that it was invalid and that he should not be compelled to produce the documents.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notice to produce, issued by a Royal Commissioner, was a valid exercise of the Commissioner's power under the *Royal Commissions Act*. This involved an examination of the scope of the Commissioner's investigative powers and the requirements for the proper issuance of such notices.
Windeyer J reasoned that the *Royal Commissions Act* conferred broad powers upon Royal Commissioners to compel the production of documents relevant to their inquiries. His Honour found that the notice in question was properly issued, satisfying the statutory requirements for its validity. The principle applied was that the legislative intent behind the Act was to facilitate thorough and effective royal commission investigations, and the powers granted to Commissioners should be interpreted to achieve this purpose, provided they were exercised within the bounds of the statute.
The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.