Legal Research
Cases
Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman

Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman

Link copied

Case Copied 12 April 1973 40 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs and Stephen JJ.

KAURI TIMBER CO. (TAS.) PTY. LTD. v. REEMAN.

(1973) 128 CLR 177

12 April 1973

Workers' Compensation (Tas.)

Workers' Compensation (Tas.)—Calculation of compensation—Total and partial dependency—"Dependant"—Wife with small property income not used for own maintenance and support—Whether wholly dependent on husband's earnings—Workers' Compensation Act 1927 (Tas.), s. 3, 1st Sch., r. 2.

Decisions

April 12.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Stephen. There will be found all the facts and statutory references necessary for the disposal of the appeal. (at p178)

2. The Chief Justice of Tasmania has found that in fact the respondent was wholly dependent on the earnings of her husband. His Honour did so because, as I understand him, she had not used her private income as a contribution to the maintenance of the family or to buy things for her personal use instead of looking to her husband to provide those things. Her private income was kept separate and not used for the family's living expenses or for her own personal maintenance. (at p178)

3. The reference to contribution to the family income stemmed from the expression used by the Earl of Halsbury in Main Colliery Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1900) AC 358, at p 362 . But his Lordship was there treating "the purpose of its maintenance as a family" as a useful and proper criterion for the resolution of the facts of that particular case. The dependency of a father on the earnings of his son was there in question. The endeavour to set up a standard of living for such a family of which the son was a member and to determine dependency according to what such a family ought to expend to maintain such a notional standard rather than what it did expend was discouraged. Actual expenditure and dependency in relation to that expenditure was to be relied on. (at p179)

4. Little assistance in the resolution of this case, in my opinion, is to be gained from the speeches of the House in that case, beyond the undoubted conclusion that dependency on the earnings of the worker is a question of fact. Indeed, what is in my opinion the critical question in this case is not directly dealt with in the reported decisions: that question, in my opinion, is dependent for what? (at p179)

5. It can be concluded from the cases that the question of dependency is not to be answered by reference to legal obligations; that there is no standard of living which will determine the question; that dependency is not limited to the provision of the bare necessities of life. On the other hand, none of the reported judgments lends support to the view that if anything is spent by anyone other than a husband on or for a wife, irrespective of the…

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 Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman 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: [1973] HCA 8
Decision Date: 12 April 1973

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning a dispute between Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd and Mr. Reeman. The core of the disagreement related to the interpretation and application of a timber licence granted by the company to Mr. Reeman, specifically concerning the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the felling and removal of timber.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the licence conferred upon Mr. Reeman an exclusive right to fell and remove timber from the specified area, and consequently, whether Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd was entitled to grant a further licence to another party for the same timber, thereby potentially infringing Mr. Reeman's rights. The Court also had to determine the nature of the interest, if any, that Mr. Reeman acquired under the licence.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, reasoned that the licence, as drafted, did not grant an exclusive right to the timber itself, nor did it confer a proprietary interest in the timber. Instead, it was construed as a licence to enter the land and do certain acts, namely to fell and remove timber, which was revocable at the will of the grantor. The Court applied principles of contract and property law, distinguishing between a licence coupled with a grant of an interest in land and a mere personal licence. It was held that the licence granted to Mr. Reeman was a personal licence, which did not prevent the company from granting a similar licence to another party, provided that the exercise of the second licence did not unreasonably interfere with the first licensee's operations.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Orders