Hazeltine Research Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corporation1
| Author | B. Morris |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X6600200108 |
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
JUNE
1966]
,Case Notes
129
18
of
the Wrongs Act
1958
(Vic.) provides
'there
shall not be taken
into account [in diminution
of
damages] any sum paid
or
payable on
the death
of
the deceased under any contract
of
assurance
or
insurance
· .
.',
and the question was whether the pension came within that
description.
Counsel for the plaintiff merely relied on the decision
of
Sholl J. in
Tinka
v.
Lenan
44
in which it was held that apension under asuper-
annuation scheme fell within the section, but Windeyer J. decided not
to
follow that decision. Sholl J. had followed, with some doubts, the
decision in Butler
v.
McLachlan
45
but he was not aware that that decision
had been overruled by the Full Supreme Court
of
South Australia in
Public Trustee
v.
Wilson.
46
For
that reason Wanstall J.,
of
the Supreme
Court
of
Queensland, in Cockburn
v.
Brock
47
refused to follow Tinka
v.
Lenan.
48
Thus the prevailing judicial opinion in Australia did
not
favour the decision in Tinka
v.
Lenan,49
and it was
not
surprising
that
Windeyer J. refused to follow it. He referred to contrary English
decisions and decided that the pension was not asum 'payable under a
contract
of
assurance or insurance'.
50
J.
A.
eRA
WFORD
HAZELTINE RESEARCH INC.
v.
ZENITH RADIO
CORPORATION1
Constitutional
Law-Evidence-Production
of
Documents-Crown Privilege
-Power
of
the court to inspect documents.
Aquestion
of
privileged Crown documents arose before the Supreme
Court
of
the Australian Capital Territory in somewhat unusual circum-
stances. Adispute concerning restrictive trade practices in the United
States led to an examination before the Registrar
of
the A.C.T. Supreme
Court under the provisions
of
the Imperial Foreign Tribunals Evidence
Act.2Under this Act, aJudge may on application order the examination
upon oath
of
awitness and the production
of
documents where the
Judge
is
satisfied that aforeign court desires to obtain the testimony
of
that witness. In the present case the Assistant Secretary
of
the Imports
Branch
of
the Department
of
Trade and Industry was subpoenaed to
44
[1956] V.L.R. 580.
45
[1936] S.A.S.R. 152.
46
[1955] S.A.S.R. 117.
47
[1959]
Qd.R.
254.
48
[1956] V.L.R. 580.
49
Ibid.
50
The cases are reviewed by
Hocker~
'Lord
Campbell's
Act-A
Comment'
(1961-
1964)~
4University
of
Queensland Law
Journal~
451.
1Unreported. Supreme
Court
of
Australian Capital Territory; Smithers
J.
219 &20 Vic. C.113.
J'LR-9
To continue reading
Request your trial