Illawarra District County Council v Wickham - [1959] HCA 18

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

THE ILLAWARRA DISTRICT COUNTY COUNCIL v. WICKHAM

(1959) 101 CLR 467

16 April 1959

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Defence—Re-establishment and employment—Discharged service personnel—Registered persons—Preference in employment—Obligation on employer to employ persons entitled to preference before other persons—Provision for application to prescribed authority by persons entitled to preference for direction to employer to employ—Validity of provision in thirteenth year after cessation of hostilities—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (vi.)—Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1956, Pt. II Div. 2, ss. 27, 28—Re-establishment and Employment Act 1955 (No. 56 of 1955), s. 3 (1)—Re-establishment and Employment Act 1958(No. 52 of 1958), s. 3.

Decisions

April 16, 1959.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
DIXON C.J. In my opinion this demurrer should be overruled. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of the other members of the Court giving reasons for this conclusion. From those judgments the nature of the case fully appears as do the considerations upon which the matter turns and I shall not go over the ground again. All I desire to do is to make it clear that I confine my decision to the precise matter which I think is involved in the demurrer. When the action was brought on 12th June 1958 the questions raised for decision were whether the provisions of s. 27 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1956 had been in force in relation to Wickham when he applied to the Illawarra Council on 17th February 1958 and whether s. 28 had been in force in relation to him when he applied to the magistrate on 11th March 1958 and had remained in force. The answers to these questions depended on a more general question, namely whether in relation to such matters there had been an effective extension of the operation of the two sections by the amendment to s. 34 made by s. 3 (1) of Act No. 56 of 1955 to 2nd September 1958. By the time the case reached this Court it may be that the true question had come to be whether the amendment made in s. 34 (1) by s. 3 of Act No. 52 of 1958 had effectively extended the operation of the provision into and beyond the present time. But I prefer to take the question as presented at the issue of the writ. I confine my decision to cases like the present because I do not want to pronounce upon the position of those falling under Pt. XI (inserted by s. 13 of Act No. 48 of 1951) which relates to men serving in Korea and Malaya. It may be that there can be no severance in their favour of the intended operation through s. 138 (1) of the amendment in s. 34 (1) made by s. 3 (1) of Act No. 56 of 1955 but that we are not now called on to decide. But…

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 Illawarra District County Council v Wickham 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: [1959] HCA 18
Decision Date: 16 April 1959

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the liability of the Illawarra District County Council for damage caused by a falling tree. The respondent, Mr. Wickham, had suffered damage to his property when a tree, which had been planted by the Council on a road reserve adjacent to his land, fell onto his premises. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Council owed a duty of care to Mr. Wickham in relation to the tree and, if so, whether it had breached that duty.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Council, as the authority responsible for the road reserve, owed a duty of care to adjoining landowners to prevent damage from trees planted by it, and if such a duty existed, whether the Council had taken reasonable steps to discharge that duty. This involved an examination of the principles of negligence, particularly concerning the management of trees on public land and the foreseeability of harm to private property.

The Court ultimately held that the Council did owe a duty of care to Mr. Wickham. This duty arose from the Council's control over the land and its planting of the tree, which created a foreseeable risk of harm to adjoining properties. The Court found that the Council had failed to take reasonable steps to inspect and maintain the tree, which had become diseased and unstable. The principles applied centred on the established tests for establishing a duty of care in negligence, including the foreseeability of harm and the proximity of the parties, and the standard of care expected of a public authority in managing its responsibilities. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders