Great Fingall Consolidated Limited v Sheehan [1905] HCA 43

Great Fingall Consolidated Limited v Sheehan [1905] HCA 43 - HCA 1905 case summary — Zoe

[40]

"Court. Sub-section 2 of the same section provides that for the H- ©. oF A. "hearing and determination of any such question, "the Magistrate" sigs "shall sit with two assessors appointed in the manner to be pre- 'Te Great "seribed by regulation; and the decision of a majority of Buon ? "such three persons" shall be the decision of the Court. It = Et. "is necessary now to turn to the Acts of the legislature SneeHax, nder which the Local Courts are established. The principal Act g,ininos. is the Small Debts Ordinance of 1863, which provides, by sec. 2, hat it shall be lawful for the Governor to constitute Local Courts "for the recovery of smalldebtsanddemands . . . throughout "the Colony . . . and likewise by proclamation to alter the "time or place or manner of holding such Courts, which Courts are declared to be Courts of Record. So that the Ordinance begins by "establishing a new Court of Record. No doubt a Court in one "sense consists of the Judges of the Court, but in another sense it "is a separate entity, the functions of which are exercised by the "persons who, for the time being, are members of the Court. Sec. "3 provides that the Governor may from time to time nominate sand appoint such and so many justices of the peace as may be _ deemed fit and proper to exercise the powers conferred on them -by the Ordinance ; and the term "the Magistrate" wheresoever occurring in the Ordinance shall be understood to mean the Magistrate so appointed. Provision is then made for appoint-

ing other officials of the Court. Sec. 6 provides that the Magistrate -may sit alone, or associated with any other justice or justices of -the peace who attend, and that when two or more justices of the peace and the Magistrate form such Court the decision of the majority shall be taken and recorded as the judgment of the Court. Under the Workers' Compensation Act, however, the Court is constituted in a different way. For the purpose of hearing claims under that Act the Court is constituted of the Magistrate and two assessors, appointed in the manner prescribed _by the regulations, whereas under the Small Debts Act 1863, the Court is constituted of the Magistrate and such justices as may think fit to attend. The regulations in force prescribe that each party shall appoint an assessor by a writing under his hand filed with the Clerk of the Court. It is contended for the appel- Jants that the Court, sitting to try claims under the Workers'

[42]

substance a different Court, inasmuch as its constitution is tially different; and it is contended further that the proc under this Act are not in substance judicial proceedings, essentially in the nature of an arbitration. Under the E Workmen's Compensation Act, upon which the Act of this is mainly based, the proceedings are arbitration proceedi an appeal to the Court of Appeal. But under the Wi Australian Act jurisdiction is in terms conferred upon an exi Court by its own name, with special provisions to which I called attention. Our attention was called to the reg made under sec. 19, which provides that the Governor may m regulations for the purpose of prescribing the mode in claims and questions under this Act may be determined, and for any other purpose which he deems necessary in order to' full effect to the provisions and intention of the Act. Governor, under that power, has made regulations, in whit determination of the Court is throughout called an award, forms are given, all of which describe it as an award. It is tended that these regulations may be referred to for the puny of interpreting the Act. In my opinion they cannot. We } referred to a case in which it was said that in construing ambiguous section of the Bankrwptey Act 1869, the Rules m by the Lord Chancellor, which had the force of law, used as a guide as to which of the two or three possible con tions of the section was the correct one; but notwithstand that case I cannot assent to the argument that a regulation m by the Governor can be used for the purpose of consti Statute under which it is made. I come to the conclusion, | the language of the Act, that the legislature intended to co this jurisdiction upon the Local Court as a Court of Justice further reason for adopting that construction, if it is open the language of the Act is, I think, to be found in the cin stance that under the Small Debts Act 1894, an app from the Local Court to the Supreme Court upon any point or upon the admission or rejection of evidence. It is well cnt that under the English Workers' Compensation Act, extre difficult questions of law have arisen, upon which there have

[62]

evidence that the exact amount had been fixed by the company's Suxenax. representative, and assented to by the plaintiff before the signing of the alleged agreement of compromise. So that, before the alleged agreement of compromise was made, the plaintiff had become entitled to be paid that £1 17s. 11d. as compensation under the Act. The Local Court specially find that the plaintiff was entitled to payment of this amount in respect of weekly payments under the Statute. The evidence upon which they came to that conclusion is worth stating. The plaintiff himself first gave evidence on the point. Tom Brown, the defendant's metallurgist, was his immediate superior, and there is abundant evidence that he had authority to fix the amount of weekly payments. He had authority to employ the plaintiff and he fixed his weekly wages. Speaking of Brown the plaintiff says: "Brown told me to see a doctor and get a certificate. After seeing the doctor I went back to the mine and gave the certificate to Tom Brown. Tom Brown read the certificate and told me to take it to the office and get my first week's pay which was due to me for getting hurt." Coming to the evidence of Brown himself we find he says: "I told him to see a doctor and get a certificate, to put it in the office and he could get half pay for being off. After fourteen days after accident the rules provide he can get half pay. He started as watchman then, and on the 2nd of June, or between that time and the 2nd of June the applicant was entitled to one half week's pay." Lynch, the accountant, who made out the receipt or alleged agreement of release, but who apparently had no instructions to draw out the document in the form in which it was drawn out, said, "I explained to Sheehan that he was going back to work and was to get no more on account of the accident. I knew he was entitled to £1 17s. 11d." Following all that evidence the Local Court found specially . . . that the plaintiff received from the company's accountant the sum of £1 17s. 11d., in pay- ment of half earnings, admittedly due to him as accident pay

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (71 paragraphs)

Cited By (4)