The Collector of Customs (New South Wales) v. Brian Lawlor Automotives Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 37

Pe ae |

; : [ 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\

BETWEEN:

THE COLLECTOR _OF CUSTOMS (NEW SOUTH WALES)

Plaintiff(Respondent)

OER ES SRE

"

AND:

tm Re een an See ore ee

aR PS ee as arene ag

BRIAN LAWLOR AUTOMOTIV™ PTY. TIMITTED

Defendant(Applicant)

at

CORAM: Bowen C.J., Smithers J. Deane J.

ce re ee sire ee a's

SMITHERS J. 3 May, 197

TO TD TR EE EE YN Te

| ange cnr ane HPINFaPUCASDT ORTHO ws —

committed by the person whom he arrests or

detains notwithstanding that the arrest and

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

McTiernan JJ. at p.381:-

"The question is not whether what the defendant

did was gustified in law but whether it was done in pursuance of the Police Offences Act.and this

means in purported or assuwed pursuance thereor",

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