Coffey v The Commonwealth [1969] HCA 22
Regulation 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is valid because its operation is to enable a chief officer to require an officer to make up time lost through unauthorised absence, not to impose punishment, so it is not inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966; it is also supported by the regulation-making power in s. 97, including at least the opening words and possibly pars. (k) and (m).
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['validity of Regulations' 'public Service Regulations' 'inconsistency With Statute' 'regulation Making Power']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether reg. 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is invalid because it is inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966.' 'Whether reg. 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations goes beyond the authority intended to be given by s. 97 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966, having regard to s. 55.']
Ratio Decidendi
Regulation 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is valid because its operation is to enable a chief officer to require an officer to make up time lost through unauthorised absence, not to impose punishment, so it is not inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966; it is also supported by the regulation-making power in s. 97, including at least the opening words and possibly pars. (k) and (m).
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment