Redland City Council v Kozik & Ors - [2023] HCATrans 34

[2023] HCATrans 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B41 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
Applicant
and
JOHN MICHAEL KOZIK
First Respondent
SIMON JOHN AKERO
Second Respondent
SARAH AKERO
Third Respondent
NEIL ROBERT COLLIER
Fourth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KIEFEL CJ
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 2023, AT 12.31 PM

____________________

KIEFEL CJ: In accordance with the protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances for the parties.

MR J.M. HORTON, KC appears with MS E. HOIBERG for the applicant. (instructed by Gadens Lawyers)

MR G.J. GIBSON, KC appears with MR P.D. HAY for the respondents. (instructed by Shine Lawyers)

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Horton.

MR HORTON: Your Honours, this application raises the question whether a defence of value received in unjust enrichment can be raised against a claim for return of wrongly levied imposts, and it does so in circumstances where the impost here was to specially benefit the payer; that is, that was the statutory formulation. The decision below, in our respectful submission, treats that defence ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL CJ: Mr Horton, we are not – the sound quality is not very good and it is not timing with your articulation – with your mouth, so it is not going to be to your benefit, I think, unless we try to improve it.

The Court will adjourn shortly to see if we can improve it. At the moment, it is quite blurred and difficult to follow.

MR HORTON: Thank you.

AT 12.32 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 12.36 PM:

KIEFEL CJ: Mr Horton, I understand that we have you by phone connection now.

MR HORTON: You do – and I am sorry for that difficulty, your Honour.

KIEFEL CJ: Not at all. Would you like to proceed, then?

MR HORTON: Yes. Your Honours, this application raises the question whether a defence for value received in unjust enrichment can be raised against a claim for return of wrongly levied imposts. It arises in circumstances where the impost was for the special benefit of the payers. Our complaint, in our respectful submission, with the decision below is that it treats that defence as unable to be raised, and the point which our client ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL CJ: Can I just interrupt you? I know it is rather early on, but could I interrupt you, Mr Horton, to just clarify something about how you would argue this, if leave were granted? If the question is seen not to involve the defence of good consideration in the sense that the Court does not think it should extend beyond the area of contract into this area of charges or imposts, would you need to discuss – would you need to argue the matter more generally as on the basis of whether there was unjust enrichment…

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 Redland City Council v Kozik & Ors

Details

AGLC: Redland City Council v Kozik & Ors [2023] HCATrans 34
Case: [2023] HCATrans 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Redland City Council against a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal concerning the liability of the Council for injuries sustained by Mr. Kozik and other plaintiffs. The dispute arose from a serious motor vehicle accident that occurred on a road maintained by the Council. The plaintiffs alleged that the Council was negligent in its maintenance of the road, which they claimed contributed to the accident.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Council owed a duty of care to road users in relation to the maintenance of the road, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the Council's responsibility for ensuring the safety of the road surface and whether the evidence established that the Council's actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable local government authority in maintaining its road network.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, affirmed that local government authorities do owe a duty of care to road users to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition. The Court analysed the principles of negligence, particularly in the context of public authorities and their statutory responsibilities. It was held that the Council's liability would depend on whether it had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of injury arising from the condition of the road. The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the alleged defects in the road and the Council's knowledge or constructive knowledge of those defects, applying the established tests for breach of duty and causation. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Queensland Court of Appeal was set aside.

Orders