Heimann v Commonwealth [1935] HCA 73

126 'HIGH COURT [

H.C. or A. substitution of a new set of provisions—a complete code, it was called 1935.

~~ _ —tegulating the rights of mortgagors and mortgages operated as the Smirx expression of a general intent to restore rights that had been destroyed ss Mees by the repealed legislation. But legislative intent can only be

lad gathered from what the Legislature has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication. The — Act No. 57 of 1932 explicitly states the legislative intent, as in see, 34, and beyond the intent so expressed the Courts cannot go.

In my opinion the result is that the appeal should be allowed.

Starke J.

Appeal allowed with costs. Demurrer overruled.

Solicitor for the appellant, F. P. Donohoe.

Solicitor for the respondent, R. S. B. Sillar. J.B.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

HEIMANN.. . 1 - " y < APPLICANT ; ;

AND

THE COMMONWEALTH . 2 x ° . ReEsponpENT.

- Constitutional Law—Action against Commonwealth for breach of contract brought in State Supreme Court—Removal into High Court—Cause . . . arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation" Judiciary Act 1903-1933 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 65 of 1933), secs. 40, 56.

Practice—Discovery—Action against Commonwealth—Jurisdiction of State Supreme Court to order discovery against the Commonwealth—Common informer—Equity Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 24 of 1901), sec. 45.

An action brought in the Supreme Court of a State for the determination, as between an individual and the Commonwealth, of rights and obligations arising ex contractu is not a cause arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of sec. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1933. _ Neither the action itself, nor any issue it involves, depends upon the meaning or application of the Constitution. The action is based solely upon the contract and upon sec. 56 of the Judiciary Act.