Commonwealth v Cocks - [1966] HCA 27

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan and Taylor JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH v. COCKS

(1966) 115 CLR 413

3 May 1966

Master and Servant

Master and Servant—Vicarious liability of master for tort of servant—Course of employment—Servant travelling in own car from old to new place of employment—Permission so to travel given by master—Commonwealth Public Service—Public Service Regulations (Cth), regs. 119, 120—General Orders for the Public Service, sub-s. (H), 10/H/1.

Decision

May 3.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
The only question in this appeal is whether in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence the appellant is liable for the negligence of the respondent's husband who was the driver of the vehicle in which she was travelling as a passenger at the time when she sustained the injuries complained of in the action. (at p415)

2. It appears that her husband, who was a Commonwealth public servant employed at Canberra, was notified that it had been decided to transfer him to a post in Melbourne, that his duties in Canberra would terminate on 6th October 1961 and that he would be required to present himself for duty on Monday 9th October 1961. Regulation 119 of the Public Service Regulations provides that when officers are transferred in circumstances such as presented themselves in this case the actual cost of conveyance of such officers, together with their wives and children, and of removal of furniture and household effects, subject to the provisions of reg. 120, shall be paid by the Department. Regulation 120 merely provides some limitation on the Commonwealth's liability to meet the cost of the removal of furniture and household effects. However, the respondent's husband was possessed of a motor vehicle and since he wished to travel to Melbourne in it he made an application pursuant to sub-s. (H) of the General Orders for the Public Service. By the relevant provisions of these orders it is provided that an officer or employee who is entitled on transfer to payment of fares for himself and his family may be granted the necessary permission to travel by his own private conveyance provided that application in the matter is made to the Chief Officer prior to the journey being undertaken and that the Chief Officer is satisfied that the use of other than the regular means of conveyance will not be to the disadvantage of the Department by reason of excess time on the journey or otherwise. Upon permission being granted an officer becomes entitled to a prescribed mileage rate for the journey - in this case 6 1/2d. per mile, and in addition, upon completion of the journey, to a travelling allowance but not to any greater sum on that account than the amount to which he would have been entitled if he had travelled by the normal means of surface travel. Further, he becomes entitled to be paid an additional mileage allowance if any member or members of his family are carried on the journey. He also is entitled to…

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 Commonwealth v Cocks

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Cocks [1966] HCA 27
Case: [1966] HCA 27
Decision Date: 3 May 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the interpretation of a provision within the *Lands Acquisition Act 1906* (Cth). The dispute arose from the compulsory acquisition of land by the Commonwealth, and the subsequent claim for compensation by the landowner, Mr Cocks (the respondent). The core of the disagreement lay in how to assess the value of the acquired land, specifically whether certain potential uses of the land should be taken into account when determining its market value.

The High Court was required to determine whether the "value of the land" for the purposes of compensation under the Act included the enhanced value that might arise from the possibility of the land being used for a purpose for which it was not then being used, but for which it was suitable and likely to be used in the reasonably near future. This involved considering the principles of valuation in compulsory acquisition and the specific wording of the relevant statutory provisions.

The Court reasoned that the "value of the land" should be assessed on the basis of its market value at the time of acquisition, taking into account all circumstances that a willing purchaser would consider. This included the existing use of the land and any potential uses to which it was adapted and for which there was a reasonable prospect of demand. The Court held that the potential for development, if it represented a real and ascertainable increase in market value, should be included in the compensation assessment. The principles applied centred on the concept of market value as representing the price that would be paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller, reflecting all factors that enhance or diminish the land's worth.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court of South Australia and remitting the matter for redetermination in accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court.

Orders