Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Quinn

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.