Island Labourers Act Amendment Act 1884 (Queensland), (47 Vict. No. 12), sec. -Regulation-Inconsistency- Ultra vires-Deduction of wages during sickness,

The Pacific Island Labourers Act Amendment Act 1884 provides (sec. 3) that "all agreements for service made with Islanders whether the stipulated time for their return to their native islands has arrived or not shall be in the form in Schedule G to the principal Act or to the like effect," &.

Schedule G contains, inter alia, a provision that no wages shall be deducted By section 47 of the Act of 1880 the Governor-in-Council is empowered to make regulations "not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for the due and effectual execution of the provisions thereof and respecting any matter or thing necessary to give effect to the objects of this Act," &. A regulation, purporting to be made in pursuance of this section, was made on 25th February, 1896, which provided (No. 5) that "No employer of a time-expired Islander shall be required to pay the wages of any such Islander during sickness," &.

In a proceeding by respondent, a time-expired Islander, to recover a sum of money representing wages deducted by his employer during sickness

Held, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, that regulation 5 did not fall within the enabling words of sec. 47 of the Act, and was consequently inoperative to alter the law by which the parties to the engagement were governed, and that as the actual written agreement for service contained no stipulation for such a deduction, the respondent was entitled to recover.

2 CLR 471

APPEAL, by special leave, from a decision of the Supreme Court of H. C. OF Queensland.

The facts of the case appear fully in the judgment of the Court.

Feez (with him Lilley), for appellants. By regulation 5, made under the Pacific Island Labourers Act Amendment Act 1884, No employer of a time-expired Islander shall be required to pay the wages of any such Islander during sickness The regulation is binding, being made for the due and effectual execution of the Act, and therefore being within the powers con- ferred by sec. 47 of the Act.

[GRIFFITH D.J.-How is the regulation of the conditions of an agreement between master and servant a regulation for the due and effectual execution of the provisions of the Act ?]

It is one of the objects of the Act to regulate the formation and carrying out of agreements between master and servant. The regulations are in every way consistent with the Act. This regulation merely adds a term to those required by the Act. Two of the main objects of the Act were (I.) to provide for Islanders being properly treated and getting proper wages, and (II.) to provide them with medical comforts during sickness. These necessitated the regulation of…

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 Young v Tockassie

Details

AGLC: Young v Tockassie [1905] HCA 17
Case: [1905] HCA 17
Decision Date: 5 June 1905

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Young, the appellant, and Tockassie, the respondent. The dispute concerned the validity of a regulation made under the *Pacific Island Labourers Act 1880* (Qld) and the *Pacific Island Labourers Act Amendment Act 1884* (Qld). The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a regulation that permitted employers to deduct wages from Pacific Island labourers during periods of sickness was valid. Specifically, the Court had to determine if this regulation was *ultra vires* the powers conferred by the relevant legislation, particularly in light of any potential inconsistency with the Acts themselves.

The Court reasoned that the legislation did not expressly grant the power to make regulations allowing for such deductions. While the Acts provided for the regulation of contracts and the welfare of labourers, the power to deduct wages during sickness was not an incidental or necessary power for the effective operation of the legislation. The Court found that the regulation went beyond the scope of the statutory authority and was therefore invalid.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the regulation permitting wage deductions during sickness was *ultra vires* and of no force or effect.

Orders