Private International Law—Tort—Negligence—Act committed in Territory—Personal injury—Territory statute imposing limit on amount of damages—Action in State court—No limit on amount of damages under State law—Choice of law—Whether law of place of tortious act or of forum—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 118, 122—Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (N.T.), ss. 4,5—State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 (Cth), s. 18. Federal Jurisdiction—Conflict of laws—Full faith and credit—Whether State court required to give full faith and credit to Territory statute—Whether law of Territory a law of the Commonwealth—Inconsistency—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 109, 118—State and Territorial Laws and Recognition Act 1901 (Cth), s. 18. Federal Jurisdiction—Action in State court against Commonwealth—Submission to jurisdiction—Whether federal jurisdiction—Whether State choice of law rules apply—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 75(iii), 78—Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 39(2), 56, 64, 79.
Decisions
MASON C.J.: This appeal raises an important conflict of laws problem. The appellant sued the respondents in the Supreme Court of Victoria for damages for personal injury arising out of a collision between the vehicle in which he was riding and one driven by the first respondent. The collision took place in the Northern Territory. By his statement of claim the appellant alleges that the collision was caused by the negligence of one or more of the respondents. The issue presented by the pleadings is whether the Supreme Court should determine the appellant's claim for damages by reference to (a) the common law principles governing the assessment of damages ordinarily applied in Victoria or (b) the statutory provisions in force in the Northern Territory governing the recovery of damages in actions in the Territory.
2. The issue arises in this way. By their defences the respondents alleged that the appellant was a resident of the Northern Territory within the meaning of s.4 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (N.T.) ("the Act"). Section 5 of that Act provided:
"(1) Subject to sub-section (2), no action for damages shall lie in the Territory in respect of the death of or injury to a resident of the Territory in or as a result of an accident that occurred in the Territory.
(2) Subject to sub-section (3), nothing in
sub-section (1) deprives a person of the right to bring an action for damages for pain and suffering or loss of amenities of life.
(3) A person who has received or has elected to receive a benefit under section 17 shall not
commence or continue an action referred to in sub-section (2)."
The respondents went on to allege that s.5 barred the appellant's action except to the extent that the appellant claimed pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The appellant, by his reply, contended that s.5 had no application to the…
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 Breavington v Godleman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Breavington v Godleman [1988] HCA 40
Case
[1988] HCA 40
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Breavington v Godleman concerned a dispute between the appellant, Breavington, and the respondent, Godleman, heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue revolved around the validity of a deed of gift of a motor vehicle, which the appellant sought to recover from the respondent. The respondent claimed ownership of the vehicle based on the deed of gift, while the appellant argued that the deed was invalid due to a lack of intention to create legal relations and, alternatively, that the gift was incomplete.
The High Court was required to determine whether the deed of gift was legally effective to transfer ownership of the vehicle. This involved considering the requirements for a valid gift at common law, specifically the necessity of an intention to create legal relations and the completion of the transfer of property. The court also had to assess whether the circumstances surrounding the purported gift demonstrated the requisite intention and whether the steps taken were sufficient to effect a complete transfer of ownership.
The majority of the High Court held that the deed of gift was valid and that ownership of the vehicle had passed to the respondent. The court reasoned that the execution of a deed, being a solemn and formal instrument, raised a strong presumption of an intention to create legal relations. Furthermore, the court found that the deed itself, properly executed, was sufficient to effect the transfer of property in the circumstances, even without physical delivery of the vehicle. The principles of equity were also considered, particularly in relation to the intention to make a gift and the steps taken to perfect that gift.