Legal Research
Cases
Smith v Watson

Smith v Watson

Case [1906] HCA 80 13 December 1906

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

802 HIGH COURT

[1906.

H.C. OF A.find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, the Court

1906.

might well say ‘ Parliament never intended to give authority to

F e e r ie r

make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra v ires’ But

it is in this sense, and in this sense onlj ,̂ as I conceive, that the

W il s o n .

question of unreasonableness can properly be regai'ded.”

Isaacs J.

The reluctance of the Court to declare void for unreasonable ness a regulation made by a public authority, having no possible object but the general w êlfare, naturally approaches its extreme limit when the regulation, as here, is required by the legislature to be approved by the highest executive authority of the State, and to be brought under the direct notice of Parliament itself.

When all the circumstances are borne in mind the objection of invalidity for unreasonableness is in my opinion impossible to sustain.

Case remitted to Magistrate.

Solicitor, for appellant. The Crown Solicitor of New South

Duti4iijr

Industnai Rei-

ations Comm,

Wales.

Re; Ex p M et^

Trades Indus'

Solicitors, for respondent. Sly & Russell.

Si^*^**^

C. A. W.

Com

AJRC, Re; Ex p Metal Trades Industry

n 9 9 M l

IRCR542

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

SMITH AND OTHERS

A p p e l l a n t s

D e f e n d a n t s ,

WATSON .

R e s p o n d e n t .

P l a in t if f ,

H.C. OF A.

1906.ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES.

S y d n ev ,

Dec. 11, 12,Mitiers’ Accident Relipf Act (N.S. IF.) (No. 42 o f 1900), sec. %— Miners’ Accident Relief (Amendment) Act (N.S. IF.) (No. 71 o f 1901), sec. \0—Allowance to miner permanently disabled—Discretion in committee—Construction o f word

Griffith C.J.,

BartOD and

may ” in Statute—Action o f mandamus—Interpretation Act (N.S. W.) (No.

Isaacs JJ.

4 of 1897), sec. 23.

4 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

803

H. C. OF A.

The Miners’ Accident Relief Act 1900, which was passed for the purpose of providing for allowances to persons injured by mining accidents, and for that

1906.

purpose to provide for contributions by mine owners and miners, and out of

Sm it h

the Consolidated Revenue, and further incidental purposes, provides for the

constitution of a committee for each mine, who, by sec. 6, “ may grant allowW

atson .

ances in accordance with the Scliedule ” out of the fund provided for by the Act in case of tlie death or disablement of any person employed in or about the mine by accident in the working of the mine, and may from time to time vary the amount so granted, but so that such amount do not exceed that specified in the Schedule, and may stop the payment of any such allowance. The Schedule, as amended by a…

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 Smith v Watson

Details

AGLC: Smith v Watson [1906] HCA 80
Case: [1906] HCA 80
Decision Date: 13 December 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Smith v Watson, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning an allowance claimed by a miner who had suffered permanent disablement. The miner sought an allowance under the provisions of the *Miners’ Accident Relief Act (N.S.W.)* (No. 42 of 1900) and its subsequent amendment, the *Miners’ Accident Relief (Amendment) Act (N.S.W.)* (No. 71 of 1901).

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of the word "discretion" as it applied to the committee responsible for determining whether to grant an allowance to a permanently disabled miner. Specifically, the Court had to ascertain the scope and nature of this discretion and whether it was absolute or subject to certain legal constraints.

The Court reasoned that the discretion vested in the committee was not unfettered. It held that while the committee had a broad power to decide on the allowance, this discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, considering all relevant circumstances pertaining to the miner's disablement and their entitlement under the Act. The Court emphasised that the purpose of the legislation was to provide relief to injured miners, and the committee's discretion should be exercised in furtherance of this objective, rather than arbitrarily.

Orders