Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing v Australian Postal Commission
(1980) 144 CLR 577[1980] HCA 23
(Judgment by: Stephen J)
Between: Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing
And: Australian Postal Commission
Judges:
Barwick CJ
Gibbs J
Stephen JMason J
Wilson J
Subject References:
Posts and Telegraphs
Judgment date: 5 August 1980
Canberra
Judgment by:
Stephen J
1. This matter began with a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the decision of the Delegate of the Australian Postal Commission.
Then an appeal was taken to the Federal Court of Australia from the upholding by the Tribunal of the Delegate's decision. Now there is the appeal to this Court from the Federal Court's dismissal of the appeal to it. (at p583)
2. The matter in dispute has all along been about as closely confined as is conceivable: it is whether or not the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing is an "authority of... a State" within by-law 118, made by the Australian Postal Commission pursuant to the Postal Services Act 1975. The Commission's Delegate concluded that the Committee was such an authority and that a periodical published by the Committee was therefore ineligible for concessional postage rates. His decision has so far survived both review and appeal. (at p583)
3. The reasons for judgment both of the Tribunal, constituted by Smithers J., and of the Federal Court (Franki, Northrop and Brennan JJ.) (1979) 37 FLR 457 ; 25 ALR 221 carefully analyze the legislation constituting the Committee and review the relevant authorities, including, in the case of the Federal Court, the then very recently reported decision of this Court in Western Australian Turf Club v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1978) 139 CLR 288 . In that decision the phrase "a public authority constituted under any... State Act" was exhaustively considered and their Honours in the Federal Court applied its reasoning in their consideration of the present case. (at p584)
4. Nothing that has been said on this appeal has led me to suppose that Smithers J. or, on appeal, Franki J. (with whose judgment Brennan J. concurred) and Northrop J. in any way erred in their conclusion that the Committee is indeed an authority of the State of Queensland within the meaning of by-law 118. (at p584)
5. Agreeing as I do with their Honours respective reasons for judgment, I do not propose to add anything further to the now considerable judicial consideration which the matter has already received. It is unfortunate that this by-law was initially framed in terms which involve so imprecise a concept as that of "an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State". As a by-law it can, no doubt, readily now be amended so as clearly to express whatever it is which the Commission intended by the phrase. (at p584)
6. I would dismiss this appeal. (at p584)