Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Ryan

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning an action brought by Edward John Ryan against Australian Iron and Steel Limited. Ryan claimed damages for injuries sustained while employed by the company, alleging breaches of regulations made under the *Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912-1948* (NSW). Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to provide safe means of access to his workplace and failed to keep passageways free from obstructions, as required by regulation 73(2) and (5) of the Scaffolding and Lifts Regulations. The defendant demurred to the plaintiff's declaration, arguing that no breach of statutory duty was alleged, that the Act did not empower the Governor to create regulations giving rise to a private right of action, and that the specific breaches alleged did not create civil obligations.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether regulation 73(2) and (5) of the Scaffolding and Lifts Regulations were validly made under the powers conferred by section 22(2)(g)(v) of the *Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912-1948* (NSW), and whether these regulations created private rights of action for individuals injured by their breach. The defendant argued that delegated legislation, unlike primary legislation, should not be interpreted as creating private rights of action unless expressly authorised, and that the regulations themselves were too uncertain to be enforceable in this manner. The plaintiff contended that once a duty is created by regulation within the scope of the enabling Act, the common law provides a remedy for breach unless the statute expressly displaces it.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court held that regulation 73(2) and (5) were validly made and fell within the scope of the regulation-making power granted by section 22(2)(g)(v) of the Act, which authorised regulations concerning safeguards for the safety and health of persons engaged in building work. Furthermore, the Court determined that these specific sub-regulations, by imposing clear duties for the safety of workers, were intended to and did confer private rights upon individuals injured by their breach. The Court reasoned that the principle that a breach of a statutory duty for the benefit of a class of persons gives rise to a correlative right of action applies equally to regulations made under a valid delegation of power, provided the regulations are within the scope of that power and do not contain provisions indicating a contrary intention. The Court found no such contrary intention and held that the specific provisions of sub-regulations (2) and (5) were sufficiently precise to create enforceable civil obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.