Le Poidevin Industries Pty Ltd v Roberts - [1991] HCATrans 246

•

.

-,~~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No AS of 1991
B e t w e e n -

LE POIDEVIN INDUSTRIES PTY LTD

Applicant

amd
STUART JOHN ROBERTS

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

BRENNAN J
DEANE J

TOOHEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON WEDNESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 2.31 PM

Le Poidevin

4/9/91

MR D.K. LE POIDEVIN:

Your Honours, I appear for the

appellant company. My name is Le Poidevin.

MR J.D. RADBONE:

May it please Your Honours, I appear on

behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Adams
Kandelaars)

BRENNAN J: Yes, Mr Radbone. Gentlemen, I should say that

the case of Harradine v The University of Adelaide
has been taken out of its position of where it was
in the list for today. It will come in later in
the list when the matter is ready for argument.

MR LE POIDEVIN:

Your Honours, this case involved a question

of the interpretation of section 17A of the
Wrongs Act, a South Australian Act of Parliament.
I have got copies of that Act available which, if Your Honours would care to have a copy - I assume
you have not already received one.

TOOHEY J: Is there anything we need to look at that is not

in the judgment of the court?

MR LE POIDEVIN:

The judgments of Justice Duggan include

section 17A, but you would need to have copies of
the appeal books before the supreme court but, in
particular, I am looking at section 17A of the
Wrongs Act -

BRENNAN J:

The material we have at the moment consists of

the application book and we have also an outline of
the respondent's submissions, and that is the
material.

MR LE POIDEVIN: Yes. Is it possible to hand up copies of

the Wrongs Act, sir?

BRENNAN J: Yes.

MR LE POIDEVIN:

I would like Your Honours to have copies,

if possible. I was asked to prepare seven, but I
do not know whether we require seven or three.

The particular section is contained in No 116

of 1983. The Act itself has been amended several
times and the amendments are attached to the

original Act. If you refer to Act No 116 of 1983 -
if I can simply proceed - this is the first
occasion on which I have appeared before the High
Court on a matter seeking leave to appeal, sir, so
I think all I can really do is go through the
appeal book and refer to each of the items that I
have already listed down, unless the Court has
already - I presume you have studied or read the
appeal book and - - -

BRENNAN J:

We have read the application book,

Mr Le Poidevin, and what you must endeavour to show

Le Poidevin

4/9/91

to us is that there is some particular question
which justifies the grant of special leave…

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 Le Poidevin Industries Pty Ltd v Roberts 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: [1991] HCATrans 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The appellant, Le Poidevin Industries Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal a decision concerning liability arising from an accident involving straying livestock. The respondent was represented by Mr J.D. Radbone.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 17A of the Wrongs Act, a South Australian statute. This section had amended the previous common law position regarding the liability of farmers for livestock straying onto public roads. The appellant contended that the case turned on whether liability was to be imposed on a strict liability basis against the property owner or farmer, or whether the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident with straying livestock still bore some liability based on negligence.

The appellant argued that the accident could only have occurred if the driver of the vehicle had been negligent. However, neither the magistrate nor the Supreme Court had made such a finding. The appellant's submission to the High Court was that a proper construction of the amended legislation and the facts would demonstrate that the plaintiff (presumably the driver or owner of the vehicle) should have been held liable for negligence, and consequently, the appellant company should not be held responsible for the vehicle's repair costs. The appellant highlighted that this was the first occasion the High Court would consider this particular 1983 amendment to the Wrongs Act.

Orders