Carmody v FC Lovelock Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 35

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ. Carmody v FC Lovelock Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 35

ORDER Demurrer to the declaration, as amended, overruled. Demurrer to the defendant's first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas allowed. Leave to amend generally. Defendant to pay one half of the plaintiff's costs of the demurrers.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Oct. 9 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this action by my brother Gibbs. The circumstances of the case are there fully set out and need no amplification. With one exception I agree entirely with all the conclusions to which my brother has come, with the reasons which he gives for them and with the orders he proposes. The conclusion with which with great respect I do not agree is that expressed by his Honour in relation to the relationship between the inquiry and report of the Tariff Board and the Minister's satisfaction of the matters specified in pars. (a) and (b) of s. 7 (1) of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961 Cth. The conclusion is expressed in the following words in his Honour's reasons:

As I have already said, a notice will only be valid if the Minister had the requisite satisfaction after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. In its context in the section the word "after" does not mean simply "following in time" but must have the meaning of "subsequent to and in consequence of". The Minister's satisfaction must be causally connected with the inquiry and report of the Tariff Board. Whilst I agree that the satisfaction of the Minister must be preceded by an inquiry and report of the Tariff Board and that that inquiry and report must be as to the subject matter of the two paragraphs of s. 7 (1) to which I have referred, the Minister's satisfaction need not, in my opinion, be founded exclusively upon that report. It may, in my opinion, be founded on information not derived from the report and indeed, in my opinion, the Minister's opinion as to any of the elements of his satisfaction may be formed despite the conclusions to which the Tariff Board may have come. It is sufficient in my opinion for the validity of the Minister's notice that he has received and considered the report of the Tariff Board on the subject matter of pars. (a) and (b) of s. 7 (1).