Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd

The applicant, Burnie Port Authority, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned damages caused by a fire to frozen goods owned by the respondent, General Jones Pty Ltd, which were stored in a cool store located on the Port Authority's land. The fire originated in a roof void.

The legal issues before the High Court involved the application of the rule in *Rylands v Fletcher* to the facts. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the activities conducted on the Port Authority's land constituted a "non-natural user" for the purposes of that rule. The applicant also argued that the decision below was inconsistent with principles relating to strict liability for dangerous or hazardous activities, as discussed in *Stevens v Brodribb*. Crucially, the trial judge had found that the Port Authority was not negligent, and this finding was not challenged on appeal.

The applicant contended that the trial judge had erred in holding the Port Authority liable under the principles of *Beaulieu v Finglam*, which the Full Court had apparently absorbed into *Rylands v Fletcher*. The applicant highlighted that the trial judge had initially found that welding on the premises was not a non-natural user. Furthermore, the applicant argued that this was not a case where the Port Authority had procured the doing of the act that caused the fire, nor was it liable for anything necessarily involved in that act, distinguishing it from cases like *Black v Christchurch Finance Company*. The fire was attributed to a collateral act of a contractor, stemming from a failure to take a simple precaution by a welder.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.