Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia

(1969) 119 CLR 334

(Judgment by: Barwick CJ)

Between: Inglis
And: Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia

Court:
High Court of Australia

Judges:
Barwick CJ
Kitto J
Taylor J
Windeyer J
Owen J

Subject References:
Constitutional Law (Cth)

Hearing date: 19-20 May 1969
Judgment date: 4 September 1969

Sydney


(The Right Honourable Mr Justice Taylor died at Sydney prior to the delivery of judgment in this appeal.)

Judgment by:
Barwick CJ

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this matter by my brother Kitto. As I entirely agree with his analysis of the relevant legislation, his conclusions and his reasons therefor, I have no need to do more than express myself on one aspect of the construction of s. 75 of the Constitution. The fundamental purpose, as it seems to me, of including par. (iii.) in this section of the Constitution thus giving original jurisdiction to this Court in all matters in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party was to ensure that the Commonwealth either in its form as established under the Constitution, or in any form with which it may lawfully clothe itself should not be compelled to pursue its rights in the courts of the States. The addition of the words "or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth" are to my mind a furtherance of this purpose. Consequently, in the construction and application of s. 75 (iii.) largeness rather than narrowness of approach is appropriate. If in reality the Commonwealth is before the Court in the litigation, no matter of form or of nomenclature can be allowed to deny the Court jurisdiction to hear and determine the rights asserted by or against it. (at p336)

2. I agree that the writ in this case initiated a matter in which the Commonwealth or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth was a party. There is no need to decide into which part of s. 75 (iii.) the matter falls. My own personal preference would be to regard the matter as one in which the Commonwealth was a party. (at p336)

3. I agree that the appeal should be allowed. (at p336)


Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).