HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH v. ANDREW JOHN BURCHER AND OTHERS
2 December 1986
Decision
MASON, WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE AND DAWSON JJ.: The sole question which has been argued on this appeal is whether the provision of s.41 of the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (N.S.W.) to the effect that, in certain circumstances, the "period of imprisonment" to be served by a person who, "after having been released under a parole order, is returned to a prison", shall be "reduced" by the "interval of time" indicated by the section is, for the purposes of s.19 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 (Cth), a provision of a State law "relating to the reduction or remission of sentences". Having taken time for consideration and notwithstanding the lucid argument of Mrs. Flemming Q.C. who appears for the appellant Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, we have reached the conclusion that question must be answered in the affirmative. We agree with and adopt the reasons given by Hope J.A. in the New South Wales Court of Appeal for that conclusion. It is common ground that the result of that conclusion is that s.19 of the Commonwealth Act applied the provision of s.41 of the State Act to reduce the outstanding "period of imprisonment" of the first respondent to an extent that completely cancelled it.
2. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Details
- AGLC
- Attorney-General (Cth) v Burcher [1986] HCA 75
- Case
- [1986] HCA 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Attorney-General (Cth) brought proceedings against Burcher seeking to recover moneys paid by the Commonwealth to the respondent under a contract for the supply of goods. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause in the contract which provided for the payment of a sum of money by the Commonwealth to the respondent upon the occurrence of certain events, and the subsequent recovery by the Commonwealth of a portion of that sum if the respondent failed to meet certain performance targets. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the clause in question constituted a penalty, and therefore was unenforceable, or whether it represented a genuine pre-estimate of damages for breach of contract. The court was required to determine the proper approach to construing such clauses in contracts and the principles to be applied in distinguishing between a penalty and a liquidated damages provision.
The High Court, applying established principles of contract law, held that the clause was a penalty and thus unenforceable. The Court reasoned that the sum stipulated was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered by the Commonwealth upon the respondent's failure to meet the performance targets. Instead, it was designed to deter the respondent from breaching the contract by imposing a disproportionately high sum. The Court reiterated the test for determining whether a clause is a penalty, which involves considering the substance of the agreement and whether the stipulated sum is extravagant and unconscionable in comparison with the greatest conceivable loss that could flow from the breach.
The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the proceedings be remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for determination according to law.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the clause in question constituted a penalty, and therefore was unenforceable, or whether it represented a genuine pre-estimate of damages for breach of contract. The court was required to determine the proper approach to construing such clauses in contracts and the principles to be applied in distinguishing between a penalty and a liquidated damages provision.
The High Court, applying established principles of contract law, held that the clause was a penalty and thus unenforceable. The Court reasoned that the sum stipulated was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered by the Commonwealth upon the respondent's failure to meet the performance targets. Instead, it was designed to deter the respondent from breaching the contract by imposing a disproportionately high sum. The Court reiterated the test for determining whether a clause is a penalty, which involves considering the substance of the agreement and whether the stipulated sum is extravagant and unconscionable in comparison with the greatest conceivable loss that could flow from the breach.
The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the proceedings be remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for determination according to law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.