Reported Decision:
(2002) 54 NSWLR 387
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: RESI Corporation v. Sinclair [2002] NSWCA 123 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40452/01 HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2002PARTIES :
RESI Corporation - claimant
Murray Sperling Sinclair - opponentJUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 3; Ipp AJA at 64
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :DDT 163/01 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Duck J
COUNSEL: F.M. Douglas QC with T.G.R. Parker - claimant
D.F. Jackson QC with J.L. Sharpe - opponentSOLICITORS: Church & Grace, Sydney for claimant
Turner Freeman, Sydney for opponentCATCHWORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - The Crown - Crown immunity - State instrumentality - Liability for tort - Whether liable for own conduct - Whether vicariously liable for conduct of employees - Whether it can be sued in the courts. D. LEGISLATION CITED: Dust Diseases Act 1989 (NSW), ss.10 and 11
Electricity Trust of South Australia Act 1946 (SA), ss.3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 36 and 40
Statutes Amendment (Energy Planning) Act 1985 (SA), s.3
Electricity Trust of South Australia Act Amendment Act 1988 (SA), Pt.IV
Crown Proceedings Act 1992 (SA), ss.4-15
Public Corporations Act 1993 (SA), ss.6(1), 28
Electricity Corporations Act 1994 (SA), ss.8-11 and 19.
Commonwealth Constitution, ss.75 and 78
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss.58 and 64
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), ss.6, 8(4), 10 and 12, 15, 130CASES CITED: Baume v. The Commonwealth (1906) 4 CLR 97
Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923) 32 CLR 200
Bradken Consolidated Limited v. Broken Hill Proprietary Limited (1979) 145 CLR 107
Wynyard Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1955) 93 CLR 376
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. State Bank of New South Wales ((1992) 174 CLR 219
State Authorities Superannuation Board v. Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1996) 189 CLR 253
Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410
Marks v. Forests Commission [1936] VR 344
Potter v. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. (1906) 3 CLR 479
Flaherty v. Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574
Ex parte Iskra. Ex parte Mercantile Transport Co. Pty. Ltd. [1963] SR(NSW) 538
Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v. Ryan (1911) 13 CLR 358
The Chaff & Hay Acquisition Committee v. J.A. Hemphill & Sons Pty. Ltd. (1947) 74 CLR 375
Townsville Hospitals Board v. Townsville City Council (1982) 149 CLR 282
Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal NSW (1997) 190 CLR 410
Merwin Pastoral Co. Pty. Ltd. v. McKindlay (1932) 48 CLR 565
Meyer Heine Pty. Ltd. v. China Navigation Co. Ltd. (1966) 115 CLR 10
Commonwealth v. Bogle (1953) 89 CLR 229
Union Steamship Co. of Australia Pty. Ltd. v. King (1988) 166 CLR 1
Port MacDonell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc. v. South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340
Chief Secretary (NSW) v. Oliver Food Products Pty. Ltd. (1960) 60 SR(NSW) 435
Thomas v. The Queen (1874) LR 10 QB…
Continue reading Resi Corporation v Sinclair
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- RESI Corporation v Sinclair [2002] NSWCA 123
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 123
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Resi Corporation (the appellant) sought to appeal a decision concerning the Crown's immunity from suit. The dispute involved whether the Crown, as a State instrumentality, could be held liable for its own tortious conduct or vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, and whether it could be sued in the courts. The matter was heard by Heydon and Hodgson JJA, and Ipp AJA.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Crown, through its instrumentalities, retained immunity from suit for tortious liability, and if so, to what extent. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Crown could be sued for its direct tortious acts and whether it could be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment.
The Court of Appeal considered the historical development of Crown immunity and its application in modern Australian law. It affirmed that the Crown, as a State instrumentality, is generally subject to the law and can be sued in the courts for its tortious conduct, both direct and vicarious. The court reasoned that the principle of Crown immunity, in its absolute form, had been significantly eroded by legislation and judicial interpretation, and that the Crown should not be placed in a more advantageous position than a private individual or corporation when it engages in activities that could give rise to tortious liability.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed with costs.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Crown, through its instrumentalities, retained immunity from suit for tortious liability, and if so, to what extent. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Crown could be sued for its direct tortious acts and whether it could be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment.
The Court of Appeal considered the historical development of Crown immunity and its application in modern Australian law. It affirmed that the Crown, as a State instrumentality, is generally subject to the law and can be sued in the courts for its tortious conduct, both direct and vicarious. The court reasoned that the principle of Crown immunity, in its absolute form, had been significantly eroded by legislation and judicial interpretation, and that the Crown should not be placed in a more advantageous position than a private individual or corporation when it engages in activities that could give rise to tortious liability.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was ultimately dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed with costs
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.