Legal Research
Cases
Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd v Victorian Rail Track

Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd v Victorian Rail Track

Link copied

Case Copied 28 September 2012 63 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY ENGINGEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LIST

No. 03916 of 2012

RAIL SIGNALLING SERVICES PTY LTD (ABN 26 096 077 244)	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIAN RAIL TRACK (ABN 55 047 316 805)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	VICKERY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 SEPTEMBER 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 SEPTEMBER 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RAIL SIGNALLING SERVICES PTY LTD v VICTORIAN RAIL TRACK
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 452	1^st Revision: 1 October 2012

NOTE: This version has been amended pursuant to the ‘Slip Rule’ by Order made 1 October 2012.

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Statutory corporation - Powers and functions governed by constituting act (Transport Integration Act 2010 (Vic)) – Delegation of powers under constituting act – Instrument of delegation – Scope of delegation – Whether delegation necessary – Carltona Principle (Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560) considered and applied – Implied authority of general manager – Exercise of powers reasonably incidental to express powers

PUBLIC SERVICE – General manager powers – Implied authority of general manager and other officers - Exercise of powers of statutory corporation - Whether delegation necessary - Carltona Principle (Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560) considered and applied - Delegation of powers under constituting act – Powers and functions governed by constituting act

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS – Incidents of legal personality conferred by constituting act - Powers and functions governed by constituting act - Delegation of powers – Implied authority of general manager and other officers - Exercise of powers of statutory corporation - Whether delegation necessary - Carltona Principle (Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560) considered and applied - Delegation of powers under constituting act

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M.A. Robins	Nathan Kuperholz
For the Defendant	Dr C.L. Pannam QC with Mr D.J. McAndrew	Arnold Bloch Leibler

HIS HONOUR:

Factual Background

The Plaintiff, Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd (“RSS”), is a company specialising in the design, construction, installation, testing and commissioning of railway level crossings and electronic signal systems for use on railway level crossings and the supply of these systems.

The Defendant, Victorian Rail Track (“VicTrack”), is a statutory corporation initially established under s 8 of the Rail Corporations Act 1996 (Vic) and is continued in operation pursuant to s 116 of the Transport Integration Act 2010 (Vic) (the “TIA” or the “Act”). VicTrack is now governed by, and subject to, the provisions of the TIA.

The proceeding commenced by way of a generally endorsed writ issued by RSS and an application for injunctive relief instituted by it for hearing in the Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Court. The principal interlocutory relief sought by RSS was an injunction directed to VicTrack to withdraw its suspension of certain works being undertaken by RSS on railway level crossings situated in Victoria and to restrain VicTrack from terminating…

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 Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd v Victorian Rail Track 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: [2012] VSC 452
Decision Date: 28 SEPTEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd brought a case against Victorian Rail Track, a statutory corporation established under the Transport Integration Act 2010, challenging certain decisions made by the corporation. The dispute centred on whether the statutory corporation had the authority to delegate certain powers to its general manager and other officers, and if these officers could exercise powers reasonably incidental to their express powers. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the extent of the powers conferred upon the statutory corporation. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the statutory corporation had the authority to delegate its powers to its general manager and other officers, and if the Carltona Principle applied to permit the exercise of implied powers. The court also had to consider the necessity of delegation in the context of the statutory corporation's functions.

In its judgment, the court held that the Transport Integration Act 2010 conferred certain powers and functions upon Victorian Rail Track. The court found that the statutory corporation had the authority to delegate its powers to the general manager and other officers, in accordance with the act. Applying the Carltona Principle, the court concluded that the general manager and other officers could exercise powers reasonably incidental to their express powers. The court emphasised that the delegation of powers was necessary to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the statutory corporation.

The court's final orders were that the decision of Victorian Rail Track to delegate certain powers to its general manager and other officers was lawful, and that the officers could exercise powers reasonably incidental to their express powers. The court dismissed Rail Signalling Services Pty Ltd's claim in its entirety.

Orders