Goldsmith v Sandilands - [2000] HCATrans 478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P16 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
TREVOR JOHN GOLDSMITH
Applicant
and
MICHAEL DARREN SANDILANDS
First Respondent
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Third Respondent
THE STATE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Fourth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON FRIDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2000, AT 12.03 PM

__________________

MR M.D. COLE: I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Terrace Law)

MR G.T.W. TANNIN: May it please the Court, with MS K.E. McDONALD, I appear for the first, second and third respondents. (instructed by Crown Solicitors for the State of Western Australia)

GUMMOW J: I hold a certificate from the Deputy Registrar stating that he has been informed by the solicitors for the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent does not wish to be represented at the hearing of this application and will submit to any order of the Court, save as to costs. Yes, Mr Cole.

MR COLE: Thank you, your Honours. The point that I wish to address your Honours on today concerns the question about whether the applicant injured himself at indoor cricket. You will recall, your Honours, that the case concerned a question of whether he had injured himself in a high‑speed pursuit and the Commissioner found that he had, in fact, injured himself previously at indoor cricket.

Now, there were three bases upon which that could be found. The first was the first respondent alleged that he had collected the applicant from the indoor cricket arena and the applicant had said to the first respondent he had injured himself. Now, on appeal to the Full Court, the Full Court said that the Commissioner had erred in not exercising his discretion to allow the applicant to reopen this case or to call rebuttal evidence. It will be recalled that the matter had been pleaded on the basis that the ‑ ‑ ‑

CALLINAN J: The only evidence that he had injured himself at the cricket match was said to be the admission made by him to another police officer. Is that right?

MR COLE: Yes, that is correct.

CALLINAN J: And did that emerge for the first time in examination in‑chief of that police officer in the defence case?

MR COLE: That is correct, yes.

CALLINAN J: But I take it the matter was put to the plaintiff?

MR COLE: Yes, the matter was put to the plaintiff, your Honour, and the difficulty the plaintiff was confronted with in relation to the matter was that he was not able to recall any details to deal with that matter.

CALLINAN J: How much detail was put to the plaintiff? Was the place where he was said to have injured himself put and was the date put?

MR COLE: It was not a precise date but it was within a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goldsmith v Sandilands and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] HCATrans 478
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goldsmith v Sandilands concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of certain land. The case was heard and determined by Gummow and Callinan JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent, Mr Sandilands, had acquired title to the land by adverse possession, and if so, whether the appellant, Ms Goldsmith, had a valid claim to the land. The court was required to consider the principles of adverse possession under the relevant Torrens system legislation and the effect of any prior dealings with the land.

The High Court examined the nature of possession required to establish adverse possession, noting that it must be exclusive, continuous, and without the owner's consent. Their Honours considered the evidence presented regarding the respondent's use and occupation of the land over the statutory period. The court applied established principles of land law and the interpretation of the relevant legislation governing adverse possession within the Torrens system.

The High Court found that Mr Sandilands had not established adverse possession of the land. Consequently, Ms Goldsmith's claim to the land was upheld.

Orders