Legal Research
Cases
Perrett v Williams

Perrett v Williams

Case [2003] NSWSC 381 9 May 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Perrett v Williams [2003] NSWSC 381

HEARING DATE(S): 25/2/03, 3/3/03-7/3/03, 10/3/03-12/3/03, 14/3/03, 19/3/03,

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

DECISION: Verdict and judgment for the defendants. Further arguments as to costs to be heard.

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Statutory Body - Duty of Care - Tort of Intimidation - Misfeasance in a Public Office - Trespass to Goods and to Land - Whether Vicarious Liability of the Boards and of the State.

LEGISLATION CITED: Clean Waters Act 1970
Fisheries Management Act 1994
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983
Local Government Act 1993
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979
Rural Lands Protection Act 1989
Stock Diseases Act 1923
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

CASES CITED: Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1
Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) AC 728
Australian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1987) 161 CLR 98
Bayliss v Cassidy SC QLD, 18 September 1998
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Limited (1994) 179 CLR 520
Burns v MAN Automotive (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
Caparo Industries Pty Ltd v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605
Commonwealth of Australia v Connell (1986) 5 NSWLR 218
Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Corporation (1999) 200 CLR 1
Deatons Pty Limited v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 352
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 77 ALJR 182
Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459
Hill v Chief Constable West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159
Hillman v Black (1996) 67 SASR 490
James v The Commonwealth (1939) 62 CLR 339
Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Little v The Commonwealth (1974) 75 CLR 94
Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co [1912] AC 716
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Limited [1966] 1 QB 716
New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCCA 235
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1996) 188 CLR 313
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180
Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern
Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd [1988] AC 473
Sanders v Snell (1999) 196 CLR 329
Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256
Sorrell v Smith [1925] AC 700
SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297
State of New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 77 ALJR 558
Sullivan v Moodie (2001) 75 ALJR 1570
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424
Tame v NSW (2002)…

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 Perrett v Williams

Details

AGLC: Perrett v Williams [2003] NSWSC 381
Case: [2003] NSWSC 381
Decision Date: 9 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perrett v Williams involved the plaintiffs, who were employees of a statutory body, suing for various causes of action including negligence, tort of intimidation, misfeasance in a public office, and trespass to goods and land. The defendants were the boards of the statutory body and the State. The dispute centred on whether the statutory body and the State owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and whether they were vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the statutory body owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs in negligence. Secondly, whether the boards and the State were liable for the tort of intimidation, misfeasance in a public office, and trespass to goods and land. Thirdly, whether the boards and the State were vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. The court also had to consider the statutory provisions and common law principles relevant to these issues.

The court found that the statutory body did owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs in negligence. However, it held that the boards and the State were not liable for the tort of intimidation, misfeasance in a public office, and trespass to goods and land. The court held that these causes of action were not actionable against the statutory body or the State. The court also found that the boards and the State were not vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, as the employees had acted outside the scope of their employment. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings. The dismissal of the claims and the costs order were significant outcomes, as they clarified the extent of the statutory body's and the State's liabilities and responsibilities. The decision provided guidance on the application of statutory provisions and common law principles in similar cases involving statutory bodies and their employees.

Orders