//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1979] FCA 37
Federal Court of Australia
1979-07-01
Smithers J, Deane J, McTiernan JJ, O'Bryan J
Original judgment source is linked above.
; : [ MB. JUSTICE T.8_ nacKHAaT| "IN THE PEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT PBGISTRYS No. G.89 of 1978 SQ) GENFRAL DIVISION 3\
detention are not actually gustificd and that his crror or mistake is in whole or in part one of law."
In Hamilton v. Halesworth (1937) 58 C.L.R. 369 where the relevant expression was "anything done in pursuance of this Act" it was said in the joint judgment of Dixon and
did was gustified in law but whether it was done in pursuance of the Police Offences Act.and this
In R. v. Clyne Ex Parte Harrap /1941_7 V.L.R. 200 at p.201, in construing the meaning of the phrase "under Part VI of the Police Offences Act 1928 (Vic.)"it was said by O'Bryan J. that "under" is perhaps more aptly translated by the expression
"pursuant to" rather than by the phrase "by virtue of",
Once it appears that phrases such as those discussed above are capable of extending to acts not authorised by the relevant statute then, having regard to the nature of the Administretive Avyveals Tribunal Act as set forth above there is, in my opinion compelling reason to accord to the relevent exprecsicy in ss.25 and 26 of the Administrative Anpeals Tribunal Act and the Schedule thereto a liberal meaning appropriate to the purposes of the Act as appearing therein. As is pointed out by the Chief Judge in his reasons for judgment herein, for the purposes of statutory provisions such as those considered in Little's Case (supra) and Trobridge v. Hardy (1955) 94 C.L.R. 147 it is ineviteble that there should be a requirement thac the
defendant acted honestly because the statutory provisions in
: . ' mG etic question operate to provide a defence 3n cases in which acti