Constitutional Law (Cth)—Bankruptcy and insolvency—Power invested in court of bankruptcy after presentation of petition to discharge from custody person held in consequence of non-payment of provable debt or penalty—Validity—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xvii)—Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s. 60 (1).
Decisions
September 4. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS C.J. This cause, which has been removed into this Court pursuant to an order made under s. 40 (1) of the Judiciary Act, was commenced by an application made on 14 January 1981 to the Supreme Court of Queensland exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy by Michael Stuart Storey for orders (inter alia) that he be released from prison and discharged from custody, and that any legal process relating to that imprisonment and any further action thereon be stayed. On 1 July 1980, on complaints laid by the respondent, an industrial inspector, the applicant was convicted in the Industrial Magistrate's Court of three offences against the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1961-1976 (Q.) ("the Industrial Act"), namely - (1) paying a lesser amount of wages than that prescribed by the Clerks and Switchboard Attendants' Award (State) during the period 26 February 1979 to 19 October 1979, both dates inclusive, to Patricia Gaye Perring, a clerk employed by him, in breach of the said award; (2) failing to pay holiday pay on the termination of the employment of the said Patricia Gaye Perring, in breach of the said award; and (3) failing to keep a time and wages book or other similar record of all employees who were at any time during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of an inspection made on 5 March 1980 in his employment showing particulars of their designation, rate of wages, times of starting and ceasing work and the award under which they were working respectively. The first and second charges were laid under s. 113, and the third under s. 126, of the Industrial Act. On the first charge the applicant was fined $100 plus costs of $18 and was ordered to pay the amount of wages underpaid, namely $2,051.96. It was directed that in default of payment of the total amount of $2,169.96 within twenty-eight days the applicant should be imprisoned for six months. On the second charge the applicant was fined $100 and ordered to pay the amount of holiday pay due and unpaid, namely $716.46, and it was directed that in default of payment of the total amount of $816.46 within twenty-eight days he should be imprisoned for six months, to be cumulative with any other period of imprisonment. The orders for the payment of the moneys due and unpaid to the employee Patricia Gaye Perring were made under s. 97 (5) of the Industrial Act which provides as follows: "Upon a prosecution of an employer for…
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 Storey v Lane
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Storey v Lane [1981] HCA 47
Case
[1981] HCA 47
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Storey and Lane concerning the interpretation of a clause in a lease agreement. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether the tenant, Lane, was entitled to a renewal of the lease under specific conditions outlined in the original contract. Storey, the landlord, contended that Lane had not met these conditions, thereby forfeiting the right to renewal.
The central legal issue before the High Court was the construction of the renewal clause within the lease. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the tenant's obligation to give notice of intention to renew was a condition precedent to the landlord's obligation to grant a renewal, and if so, whether the notice provided by the tenant was sufficient to satisfy this condition. The court also considered the implications of any alleged breaches of covenant by the tenant on their right to renewal.
The High Court, in its joint judgment, analysed the wording of the renewal clause and the surrounding circumstances. The judges applied principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used by the parties. They found that the tenant's notice was indeed a condition precedent and that the tenant had failed to comply with its terms. Consequently, the tenant's right to a renewal of the lease was extinguished. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower court were set aside.