Agar v Hyde, Agar v Worsley - [2000] HCATrans 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S159 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
A E AGAR & ORS
Appellants
and
LUKE DOUGLAS HYDE

Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S160 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
A E AGAR & ORS
Appellants
and
PETER MICHAEL WORSLEY

Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 23 MARCH 2000, AT 9.36 AM

(Continued from 22/3/00)

________________________

GLEESON CJ: Yesterday, Mr Deakin, there was some exchange in relation to the matter of the time that elapsed between the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the hearing of the special leave application. Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 19 October 1998. Applications for special leave to appeal were filed on 16 November 1998. On 17 December 1998 an amended application for special leave to appeal and summaries of argument of the applicants were filed. On 3 February 1999 the respondents’ appearance was filed.

On 17 March 1999 the Registry contacted the respondents’ solicitors asking as to why no summary of argument had been filed. On 22 March 1999 the Registry contacted the respondents’ solicitors asking why no summary of argument had been filed. I am sorry, on 9, 17 and 22 March the Registry contacted the respondents’ solicitors asking why no summary of argument had been filed. The Registry was informed that the solicitors for the respondent had not noticed that they had been served with summaries of argument by the applicant. On 25 March 1999 the respondents’ summaries of arguments were filed.

On 27 April 1999 a draft index to the application book was forwarded by the Registry to the parties. On 4 May 1999 the parties were notified by the Registry that the applications would not be able to be listed in June because the papers were not complete and would possibly go into the August 1999 list. On 11 May 1999 the

applicants’ reply was filed and on 11 May 1999 an appointment was made with the Registrar to settle the index to the application book. Yes, Mr Deakin.

MR DEAKIN: Thank you, your Honour. When I did address the Court yesterday, your Honours, I was not aware of the details that your Honour has just put to us, but we obviously accept all of what your Honour has said and to the extent to which the appellants are in any way responsible for the delay that has occurred in this matter, it is to be regretted and we apologise to the Court.

GLEESON CJ: Yes, thank you, Mr Deakin.

MR DEAKIN: Thank you. Your Honours, we have concluded what we wanted to say, except before moving to discretion, subject to two matters. We did not give your Honours, I do not think, a reference to the two other judgments of the Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Agar v Hyde, Agar v Worsley

Details

AGLC: Agar v Hyde, Agar v Worsley [2000] HCATrans 110
Case: [2000] HCATrans 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two related cases, *Agar v Hyde* and *Agar v Worsley*. The disputes arose from injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, Mr. Agar and Mr. Worsley, during a rugby union scrum. Both plaintiffs alleged negligence against the organisers of the rugby match, the Australian Rugby Football League (ARFL), and the club that fielded the opposing team, the Manly Rugby Football Club. The core of the plaintiffs' claims was that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of players participating in the match, specifically concerning the scrum formation and the conduct of players within it.

The High Court was required to determine whether the ARFL and Manly Rugby Football Club owed a duty of care to the players, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the duty of care owed by sporting organisations to participants, particularly in relation to inherent risks of the sport. The question was whether the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks of injury that were not inherent to the game of rugby union.

The Court held that sporting organisations do owe a duty of care to participants to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injury. However, this duty does not extend to eliminating all risks of injury, particularly those that are inherent to the nature of the sport. The Court found that the risks associated with a rugby scrum, including the potential for injury, were inherent to the game. The plaintiffs had not established that the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks that were outside the inherent risks of the sport. The Court concluded that the defendants had not breached their duty of care.

The appeals were dismissed.

Orders