Legal Research
Cases
Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith

Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith

Link copied

Case Copied 26 August 1966 17 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ.

BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL v. SMITH

(1966) 120 CLR 145

26 August 1966

Tort—Water

Tort—Action on the case—Scope—Unlawful, intentional and positive act inevitably causing harm or loss to another. Water—Riparian owners—Common law rights—Statutory rights—Licensee for irrigation purposes—Damage resulting from taking by local authority without permit of gravel from river bed for road construction purposes—The Water Acts, 1926 to 1964 (Q.), ss. 4*, 11, 14—The Main Roads Acts, 1920 to 1965 (Q.), s. 27**—The Gravel, Sand, and Material Regulations (Q.), regs. 5, 6, 7.

Decision

August 26.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
The respondents are the executors of the will of Patrick Reilly Smith, deceased, who died before an action begun by him against the appellant was decided. (at p148)

2. On 6th November 1944 a licence under The Water Acts of 1926 (Q.) (as amended) was issued by the Commissioner of Irrigation and Water Supply to Patrick Reilly Smith to install a pumping plant, with a three-inch diameter delivery outlet on the pump, on part of his farming and grazing property fronting the Albert River for the purpose of irrigating twenty acres of the property for growing lucerne and farm crops. This licence was, with amendments that are not material, renewed from time to time and was in force in 1957. Pursuant to the licence, Patrick Reilly Smith did install a pump in November 1944, and for the thirteen years between 1944 and 1957 pumped water for the irrigation of his property in accordance with his licence. The pump was installed where there was a natural and permanent pool in the river-bed, so that, independently of surface flow, water was at all times available for pumping. (at p149)

3. In 1957 the appellant Council took 12,000 yards of gravel for road construction out of the bed of the Albert River in the vicinity of Smith's farm and, in so doing, destroyed the natural waterhole from which he pumped water. The removal of the gravel altered the flow of the river so that, as the pump was situated, Smith could no longer use it to obtain the water which is licence permitted him to take. Unquestionably there would be some expense involved in restoring a supply of water by shifting the pump to another site and it seems that no alternative site was quite as advantageous as that which had been rendered useless by the appellant's acts. (at p149)

4. Smith brought an action against the Council, claiming 20,000 pounds damages, alleging that what had been done was wrongful and had caused him loss and damage. Hanger J. found for the plaintiffs who, upon Smith's death, had been made parties to the action and awarded them 5,000 pounds damages. (at p149)

5. The first question to be decided is whether the appellant Council was authorized to take gravel from the river, as it did. Counsel for the appellant sought to justify the taking upon one of two grounds. In the first…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1966] HCA 49
Decision Date: 26 August 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland in a dispute between Beaudesert Shire Council and Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith had suffered damage to his land as a result of the Council's actions in constructing a concrete drain and diverting water onto his property. He alleged that the Council had acted unlawfully in carrying out this work and sought damages for the resulting injury.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Council's actions, which caused damage to Mr. Smith's land, constituted a tortious wrong for which damages could be recovered, even in the absence of a specific statutory provision authorising the damage or a common law duty of care in negligence. The Court had to determine if a person who intentionally interferes with the property of another, without statutory authority, is liable for the resulting damage.

The Court held that the Council was liable for the damage caused to Mr. Smith's land. The majority reasoned that a person who voluntarily interferes with the property of another, without lawful justification, commits a wrong for which damages are recoverable. This principle applies even if the interference is not negligent and is undertaken for a public purpose. The Court affirmed that the right to retain possession of one's land and to have it free from unauthorised interference is a fundamental legal right, and an intentional act that infringes this right, without lawful excuse, gives rise to a cause of action.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland in favour of Mr. Smith was affirmed.

Orders