Hewitt v Holliday

The case of *Hewitt v Holliday* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, William Meredith Holliday, had been injured when he rode his motor cycle into a wire erected by the defendant, Mary Ann Hewitt, on her land. The wire was placed across a track that had been worn by persons deviating from a permitted drive to access a house leased by the defendant. While the defendant objected to this deviation, the lessee of the land had permitted its use, and the plaintiff, who was accustomed to using the track, was unaware of the wire's presence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, who was using her land without her express permission, albeit with the permission of her lessee. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was a trespasser to whom no duty was owed, while the plaintiff contended that he was not a trespasser due to the lessee's permission and that the defendant had breached a duty of care by erecting a dangerous obstruction.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. The Court indicated that the permission granted by the lessee of the land meant the plaintiff was not a trespasser. This finding was crucial as it meant the defendant could not rely on the defence that no duty was owed to a trespasser. The jury had found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court had upheld this verdict, suggesting that the plaintiff's status as a licensee or invitee, rather than a trespasser, was established, and that the defendant's actions in erecting the wire likely constituted a breach of duty.

Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion.