Miller v Hilton - [1937] HCA 23

COMPLAINANT, HILTON

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Road Transport-Controlled route-Unlawfully "causing" " vehicle to be driven on

route-Contract to deliver goods-Goods delivered by employee in employer's absence-No instructions given by employer-Road and Railway Transport Acts MELBOURNE,

1930 and 1931 (S.A.) (Nos. 1967 and 2020), sec. 14. May 17, 18,

The defendant was charged with causing a motor vehicle to be driven on a Latham C.J.,

controlled route contrary to sec. 14 of the Road and Railway Transport Acts 1930 and 1931 (S.A.). He had agreed with the vendor of a tractor to deliver it to the purchaser. When the tractor was ready for delivery the defendant was absent and had left his business in charge of his son. The vendor informed the son that the tractor was ready for delivery. The defendant had not given any instructions to his son about delivering the tractor, and the son was not

57 CLR 401

aware that his father had previously agreed to deliver it. The son delivered it, and in doing so drove a motor lorry on a controlled route without the licence required by the Acts,

Held, by Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. (Latham C.J. dissenting), that the defendant did not "cause" the lorry to be driven in contravention of sec. 14.

Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court): Hilton V. Miller, (1936) S.A.S.R. 380, affirmed on different grounds.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of South Australia.

A complaint was laid by William Charles Miller, police prosecutor, of Adelaide, against Percival Robert Joseph Hilton, of Westbourne Park, in South Australia, alleging that the defendant, on or about 20th January 1936, between Adelaide and Halbury, in South Australia, not being the holder of a licence under the Road and Railway Transport Acts 1930 and 1931 (S.A.), or a person employed by the holder of such a licence, unlawfully caused to be driven a vehicle, to wit, a motor lorry, for the purposes of carrying goods for hire on the road between Tarlee and Gladstone, via Auburn, Clare, Yacka and Gulnare, which road was on or about 20th January 1936 a controlled route within the meaning of the said Acts, having been on 29th April 1931 declared by order of the Transport Control Board, constituted by the said Acts, to be a controlled route for the purposes of the said Acts and in relation to which controlled route the said board did on 17th January 1931 by order fix 18th July 1931 as the "appointed day' within the meaning of sec. 14 of the said Acts for the carriage of goods for hire, and that in SO doing the defendant acted contrary to the provisions of sec. 14.

It appeared from the evidence that the South Australia Tractor Co., on or about 8th January 1937, sold a tractor to one Gregor at Halbury and that the defendant agreed with the company to deliver the tractor at Halbury. On Friday, 17th January, the defendant…

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.

Continue reading Miller v Hilton

Details

AGLC: Miller v Hilton [1937] HCA 23
Case: [1937] HCA 23
Decision Date: 28 May 1937

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, William Charles Miller, a police prosecutor, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal concerned the conviction of the respondent, Percival Robert Joseph Hilton, for unlawfully causing a motor lorry to be driven on a controlled route contrary to section 14 of the Road and Railway Transport Acts 1930 and 1931 (S.A.). Hilton had agreed to deliver a tractor, and in his absence, his son, who was in charge of the business and unaware of the delivery agreement, delivered the tractor using a lorry on a controlled route without the required licence.

The legal issues before the High Court were: first, whether the phrase "on any controlled route" in section 14(2) of the Act modified the verb "cause" or the verb "to be driven"; second, whether the description of the controlled route in the relevant order was sufficiently certain; and third, whether Hilton had "caused" the lorry to be driven on the controlled route, considering the actions of his son and the absence of direct instructions from Hilton.

A majority of the High Court (Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ.) held that the phrase "on any controlled route" was intended to modify "to be driven" and not "cause," meaning the driving, not necessarily the act of causing, had to occur on a controlled route. They also found the description of the route to be adequate. However, the majority concluded that Hilton had not "caused" the lorry to be driven on the controlled route. Their reasoning was that while the son was acting within the scope of his employment, there was no evidence that Hilton intended or foresaw that his son would use a controlled route. The driving of the lorry on the controlled route was considered an accidental consequence of the son's actions, not something directly caused by Hilton. Latham C.J. dissented, finding that the evidence indicated Hilton must have intended the natural and probable consequence of his son using a controlled route for the delivery, given the circumstances.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia, albeit on different grounds. The conviction of Hilton was not restored.

Orders