COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V. GREENWOOD

| i

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE, _COM

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at.......

On...

M73/30063

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Vv.

GREENWOOD

ORDE

Appeal dismissed with costs.

52S

ORAL JUDGMENT

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

GREENWOOD

BARWICK C.J.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Vv.

GREENWOOD

In my opinion this appeal should be dismissed. The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgments of the learned primary judge and of the members of the Full

Court which heard the appellant's appeal to that Court.

The respondent was a passenger in the car of a fellow naval rating. The question of fact in the case was whether that fellow rating in carrying the respondent in his private motor car was doing so in the course of his, that is, the driver's employment. It is submitted there was no evidence upon which the jury could answer that question affirmatively. In my opinion there was ample evidence for that purpose. The driving rating was authorised clearly by the appellant's admission to carry the respondent. I am unable to agree with the view of Mr. Justice Lush that the jury could not act on the admission contained in the answer to an interrogatory, and they were bound, on looking at the Regulation, to disregard that admission.

The respondent was"an authorised passenger of"the driving rating, that is to say, authorised by the Commonwealth. Both ratings were on duty, moving from one ship to another. They were authorised to travel together for the convenience of the appellant. I do not think the matter need proceed further. The question is not whether the driving rating was instructed to carry the respondent; it is enough that

there is material upon which it could be concluded by the

Dasma saat = cet

jury that the respondent was carried by the driving rating

in the course of that rating's employment.