The Commonwealth v Mullane [1961] HCA 28

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ. The Commonwealth v Mullane [1961] HCA 28

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Dixon C.J.:—

Dixon C.J., Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

Section 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1956 Cth provides that "Any person affected by any determination or action of the Commissioner under the Act may appeal to a County Court against the determination or action and the Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal, and such appeal may be in the nature of a re-hearing."

The respondent in this appeal appealed to the County Court under that provision. His claim was for compensation for an injury arising in the course of a journey from or to the place of his employment.

On the appeal coming on, certain documents were placed before the County Court judge and from them it appeared that the applicant—or appellant, to him—was suffering from a condition described as disseminated sclerosis, and alleged that that condition was aggravated or accelerated by an accident he had had upon a journey from his employment.

It was then made to appear from documents put before his Honour that a Medical Board had been appointed and the Commissioner, or his Delegate, had referred to the Board certain questions. That was done under s. 19 of the Act.

The Medical Board had granted a certificate, portion of which favoured the applicant, but portion of which was said to be unfavourable to him. With those documents and certain other formal documents before him, the judge entertained what was described as a preliminary objection on the part of the Commonwealth. It appears hardly to merit the description preliminary objection: for it was not preliminary and it was hardly an objection. But it was an argument that the certificate was conclusive and that it was conclusive against the applicant or appellant before the County Court. The learned judge took time to consider this argument and delivered a decision or reasons in which he said that he did not regard the certificate as conclusive against the appellant, the employee, upon the issue which fell for him to consider. He gave his reasons, which depended upon the contents of the certificate.