Legal Research
Cases
Boyd v Carah Coaches Pty Ltd

Boyd v Carah Coaches Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 22 November 1979 48 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

BOYD v. CARAH COACHES PTY. LTD.

(1979) 145 CLR 78

22 November 1979

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of interstate trade—Prohibition of carrying on business of travel agent without licence—Licence to be refused if authority not satisfied that applicant a fit and proper person—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92—Travel Agents Act, 1973 (N.S.W.), ss. 6, 10, 12, 13, 42—Interpretation Act, 1897 (N.S.W.), s. 14A.

Decisions

November 22.
The following written judgments were delivered: - BARWICK C.J. Two questions are asked in this case stated, namely:

"(i) whether the company tourist coaches whilst carrying passengers and conducting holiday tours in the circumstances stated are engaged in trade, commerce or intercourse amongst the States within the meaning of s. 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution;

(ii) whether the provisions of the Travel Agents Act 1973 (N.S.W.) and the Regulations made thereunder so far as they affect the company in the circumstances stated whilst carrying passengers and conducting holiday tours in its tourist coaches contravene or any part of them contravenes s. 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution or are or is inapplicable to the company whilst so operating." (at p81)

2. It is rightly conceded by the informant that the first question should be answered affirmatively. (at p81)

3. In my opinion, the second question should also be answered affirmatively. (at p81)

4. My brother Mason, in the reasons for judgment which he has prepared and which I have had the advantage of reading, sets out the relevant facts which justify the answer to the first question and the particular statutory provisions necessary to be known in order to answer the second. (at p82)

5. I agree with my brother's reasons for concluding that, in so far as s. 10 of the Travel Agents Act, 1973 ("the Act") prohibits the defendant company from carrying on its described business without a licence granted in that behalf under the Act, it offends s. 92 and cannot validly operate against the defendant. My own short reason for that conclusion is that the Act does not enable the defendant to obtain such a licence as of right: in the final analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act, the grant of a licence rests in the discretion of the Board. The judgments of Fullagar J. in McCarter v. Brodie (1950) 80 CLR 432, at p 498 ; Hughes and Vale Pty. Ltd. v. New South Wales (1953) 87 CLR 49, at pp 99-100 ; and Hughes &Vale Pty. Ltd. v. New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127, at pp 201, 206 , are particularly instructive in this connexion. (at p82)

6. Further, in any case, and apart from the existence of that discretion, the conditions which would have to be fulfilled to warrant the grant of such a licence are not such as to make the prohibition in s. 10 no more than a mechanism in…

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 Boyd v Carah Coaches Pty Ltd 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: [1979] HCA 56
Decision Date: 22 November 1979

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Boyd v Carah Coaches Pty Ltd*. The dispute concerned the liability of a coach company for injuries sustained by a passenger, Ms. Boyd, who fell from a moving coach. Ms. Boyd alleged negligence on the part of Carah Coaches, arguing that the company had failed to ensure the safety of its passengers.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Carah Coaches had breached its duty of care to Ms. Boyd. This involved determining whether the company had taken all reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to its passengers, particularly in relation to the risk of falling from a moving vehicle. The court also had to consider the nature and extent of the duty owed by a carrier to its passengers.

The High Court held that Carah Coaches had breached its duty of care. The court reasoned that the company ought to have foreseen the risk of a passenger falling from a moving coach, especially given the circumstances of the incident. The company's failure to implement adequate safety measures, such as ensuring doors were securely fastened or providing a means to prevent passengers from falling out, was found to be negligent. The court applied the principles of foreseeability and the duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks, establishing that a carrier must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its passengers.

Orders