POWER V. WOODROW AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

POWER V. WOODROW AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

The plaintiff became a member of the Defence Forces by affirmation made in the prescribed form; thus, his arrest and detention for absence without leave were lawful under military regulations. Alternatively, even if not a member, regulation 286 permitted arrest as if he were a soldier.

Parties
Plaintiff: John William Wilson Power; Defendant: Colonel David Douglas Woodrow; Defendant: The Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 1944
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages / Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Enlistment, Conscientious Objection, Protected Undertaking Employment, Military Detention

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Wilson Power

Plaintiff

Colonel David Douglas Woodrow

Defendant

The Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages / Reasons for Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was a member of the Defence Forces at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether the arrest and detention of the plaintiff were lawful
  3. 3 Whether employment in a protected undertaking exempts from military service

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff became a member of the Defence Forces by affirmation made in the prescribed form; thus, his arrest and detention for absence without leave were lawful under military regulations. Alternatively, even if not a member, regulation 286 permitted arrest as if he were a soldier.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • The action against the defendants is dismissed with costs.