Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Quinn - [1946] HCA 12

72 CLR 345

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS (NEW

SOUTH WALES) QUINN

RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF, Railways-Negligence-Carriage of goods-Non-delivery of goods-By-law- Incor-

poration by reference to handbook with conditions of carriage-Condition limiting time for making claim-Validity-" Just and reasonable" - Failure to observe condition-Liability of Commissioner-Common carrier-Bailee - Failure to exhibit by-law-Effect-Government Railways Act 1912-1943 (N.S.W.) (No. 30 March 26, 27. of 1912-No. 43 of 1943), 88, 33, 64, 65, 66, 67, 136-By-law No. 1,002, Condition No. 27-Common Carriers Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No. 48 of 1902), 8. 9 (a), (c).

A contract made between the Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) and the owner for the carriage of certain goods was expressed to be subject to the provisions of the Government Railways Act 1912, as amended, the by-laws, regulations and conditions published thereunder, and to the terms and con- ditions of the consignment note signed by the owner. A by law SO incorporated contained (inter alia) two conditions (1) that a claim for loss or damage to goods tendered for conveyance by rail would not be allowed unless lodged in writing with the Commissioner within fourteen days after the date when delivery was or should have been given; (2) that the Commissioner did not guarantee the arrival or delivery of any goods at any particular time and that he did not undertake to advise the consignor of the arrival of the goods or that delivery had not been taken. The goods were consigned at 'Commissioner's

Held by the whole Court that the by-law containing the condition requiring claims for loss or damage to be lodged within fourteen days was not invalidated through the failure of the Commissioner to exhibit it on railway stations and other places in accordance with SS. 66 and 67 of the Government Railways Act 1912-1943 (N.S.W.).

72 CLR 346

Held further by Rich, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. (Williams J. dissent. ing) that the condition was not just and reasonable and therefore, being contrary to the provisions of S. 9 (a) of the Common Carriers Act 1902 (N.S.W.), (N.S.W.)

Held by Rich, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. that despite the fact that all the goods were tendered to the owner's agent, the Commissioner, in QUINN.

the circumstances of the case, remained a common carrier in respect of certain of the goods of which delivery had not been taken, and was not a bailee for the safekeeping thereof.

Appeal from decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) Quinn v. Commissioner for Railways, (1945) 46 S.R. (N.S.W.) 163 63 W.N. 69, dismissed, but pursuant to the order giving leave to appeal order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in lieu of the order of a new trial.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

An action was brought in the District Court of New South Wales by Mabel Irene Quinn, widow, against the Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) for damages for the loss of three suit cases and their contents valued in all at £90 7s. 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 Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Quinn

Details

AGLC: Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Quinn [1946] HCA 12
Case: [1946] HCA 12
Decision Date: 29 May 1946

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Quinn* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned a claim for the loss of three suit cases and their contents, valued at £90 7s, which had been consigned by the respondent, Mabel Irene Quinn, with the appellant, the Commissioner for Railways (NSW). The goods were consigned under a consignment note that incorporated the provisions of the *Government Railways Act 1912* (NSW), its by-laws, regulations, and conditions.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: (1) whether a by-law requiring claims for loss or damage to be lodged in writing within fourteen days was valid and enforceable, particularly in light of the Commissioner's failure to exhibit the by-law as required by sections 66 and 67 of the *Government Railways Act*; (2) whether this fourteen-day claim condition was "just and reasonable" within the meaning of section 9 of the *Common Carriers Act 1902* (NSW), which governs the extent to which a common carrier can limit its liability; and (3) whether the Commissioner retained the status of a common carrier in respect of the lost goods, or if the relationship had shifted to that of a bailee for safekeeping.

A majority of the High Court (Rich, Starke, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ.) held that the failure to exhibit the by-law at railway stations did not invalidate it, as the *Government Railways Act* provided for by-laws to take effect upon publication in the Government Gazette. However, the majority found that Condition 27 of the by-law, which imposed a fourteen-day time limit for lodging claims, was not "just and reasonable" as required by the *Common Carriers Act*. This was due to the potential for uncertainty in determining when delivery "should have been given," especially in circumstances of delay or non-delivery, and the lack of a reasonable alternative offered to the consignor. The Court also determined that, despite the goods being made available for collection, the Commissioner remained a common carrier in respect of the lost suit cases, as delivery had not been completed.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff, Mabel Irene Quinn, for the amount claimed, in lieu of the new trial ordered by the Supreme Court.

Orders