Pemberton v Banfield [1912] HCA 62

Pemberton v Banfield [1912] HCA 62

Carting empty barrels and crates after the permitted hours between two cities is within the literal words of the statutory prohibition. The exemptions in sec. 12 do not apply when carting is between two cities. The carter was technically guilty of the offence under sec. 40 as amended.

Parties
Appellant, Informant: Francis Joseph Pemberton; Respondent, Defendant: Edward Banfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal allowed (by consent as to costs)
Legal Topics
Factories and Shops Act 1907 (vict.), Prohibited Working Hours, Carters and Carriers Regulations
Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Factories and Shops Act 1907 (vict.) Prohibited Working Hours Carters and Carriers Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Joseph Pemberton

Appellant, Informant

Edward Banfield

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether carting empty barrels and crates after prohibited hours constitutes an offence under sec. 40 of the Factories and Shops Act 1907 (Vict.) as amended
  2. 2 Whether sec. 12 of the Factories and Shops Act 1909 (Vict.) provides an exemption in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Carting empty barrels and crates after the permitted hours between two cities is within the literal words of the statutory prohibition. The exemptions in sec. 12 do not apply when carting is between two cities. The carter was technically guilty of the offence under sec. 40 as amended.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed (by consent as to costs)

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged except as to costs.
  • Defendant fined one shilling.