Evidence—Inference of inter-State character of journey of loaded vehicle drawn from evidence—Evidence in a document admitted at trial included a hearsay self-serving statement of driver's intention of travelling inter-State—Other evidence of vehicle whilst loaded and empty having been observed in other State—Sufficiency of facts in evidence to support inference.

Decisions

November 29.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. The appellant was charged before a stipendiary magistrate with having used an articulated motor vehicle to carry goods on a public road in Queensland without a permit as required by The State Transport Act of 1960 (Q.) (the Act). His defence was that the Act did not apply to the carriage on which he was then engaged because he was taking his load from Brisbane to Sydney. Deciding the matter on a balance of probabilities, the magistrate decided that the appellant was so engaged and accordingly dismissed the information laid against him by the respondent. Upon review, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland by majority set aside this dismissal and returned the matter to the magistrate with a direction to convict the appellant. The appellant now appeals to this Court by its special leave against the order of the Supreme Court. (at p584)

2. The terms of the Act and the detail of the facts and circumstances evidenced before the magistrate are fully set out in the reasons for judgment of my brother Owen which I have had the advantage of reading. I have also had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Menzies. I agree with the conclusion which each of their Honours has reached but would wish to add some observations of my own. (at p584)

3. Counsel were prepared to discuss the question as to where the onus of proof lay in a case such as the present when a defendant claims that the carriage in respect of which he is charged was an inter-State carriage. However, as it did not appear that that question would necessarily arise the Court did not hear argument on the matter, reserving the parties' rights if a decision on the point should become necessary. As will appear, however, my brothers Menzies and Owen and I are able for our part to dispose of the appeal without expressing any view on that question. (at p584)

4. The magistrate properly had in evidence before him the goods and vehicle checking slip completed and signed by an authorized officer. However, he did not use it as material available to him in deciding whether the carriage on which the appellant was engaged at the time of the interception of the vehicle on the Lockyer Darling Downs Highway was an inter-State carriage. In my opinion, in this he was in error. The document being in evidence could be used as evidence…

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 Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd v Barnes

Details

AGLC: Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd v Barnes [1968] HCA 76
Case: [1968] HCA 76
Decision Date: 29 November 1968

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland in favour of the respondent, Barnes. The dispute concerned the validity of a contract for the sale of land, specifically whether the contract was void for uncertainty or for failure to comply with the requirements of the *Land Sales Act 1967* (Qld).

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract, which contained a clause requiring the purchaser to obtain finance on terms and conditions satisfactory to the vendor, was sufficiently certain to be enforceable, and whether the contract offended the provisions of the *Land Sales Act 1967* (Qld) by requiring the purchaser to obtain finance.

The Court held that the clause requiring the purchaser to obtain finance on terms satisfactory to the vendor did not render the contract void for uncertainty. It was determined that the vendor's satisfaction was an objective standard, capable of being assessed. Furthermore, the Court found that the *Land Sales Act 1967* (Qld) did not prohibit such a clause, as it did not impose an obligation on the purchaser to obtain finance, but rather made the contract conditional upon the purchaser's ability to do so. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Orders