Circular Head Fencing Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board

Circular Head Fencing Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of a single judge that found it liable for negligence. The dispute concerned damage caused to a vehicle owned by the Motor Accidents Insurance Board (the respondent), which occurred when a fence constructed by the appellant collapsed onto the vehicle. The respondent had argued that the appellant's negligent construction of the fence caused the damage.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appellant had breached its duty of care to construct the fence to a reasonable standard, thereby causing the respondent's loss. This required the Court to consider the appropriate standard of care to be applied to the appellant, given the circumstances of the fence's construction and the absence of specific evidence detailing industry standards.

The Full Court reasoned that the standard of care owed by the appellant should be assessed by reference to a reasonable person in the appellant's position, possessing its knowledge and capacities at the time of construction. The Court noted that the appellant had acted in accordance with common industry practice, and that the standard of care should not be assessed with the benefit of hindsight or with expertise exceeding that possessed by the appellant. As there was no evidence establishing that the appellant's conduct fell below this reasonable standard, the Court concluded that a breach of duty had not been established.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the single judge, and ordered that the respondent's claim be dismissed.