Roads and Jetties Act 1935 (TAS)

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and involved a dispute under the Roads and Jetties Act 1935 (TAS). The primary legal issue was whether the Minister for Transport had the authority to require the removal of an informal access pathway constructed by the respondent to allow vehicular access to a State highway. The respondent argued that the Act did not provide for the Minister to mandate the removal of such pathways, while the Minister contended that the authority to do so was implicit in the legislative framework governing road management and safety. The court had to determine the scope of the Minister's powers under the Act, particularly in relation to maintaining the safety and efficiency of State highways.

In its decision, the court examined the relevant sections of the Act, including those concerning the temporary closing of State highways and subsidiary roads, and the provisions relating to the management of informal access pathways. The court found that while the Act provided for the Minister to close highways and regulate works within them, it did not explicitly empower the Minister to require the removal of informal access pathways. However, the court held that the Minister's broader powers to regulate activities that could affect the safety and usability of highways implicitly included the authority to address informal access pathways that posed a risk. The court reasoned that the Minister's discretion to close highways for safety reasons and to regulate works within them necessitated the ability to manage elements that could compromise road safety, including informal pathways. Consequently, the court upheld the Minister's action to require the removal of the pathway, finding it to be a reasonable exercise of the powers granted under the Act.

The court ordered that the respondent must comply with the Minister's requirement to remove or upgrade the informal access pathway to ensure it met safety standards. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to take necessary actions to restore the highway to its original condition if the pathway was removed. The respondent was also responsible for any reasonable costs incurred by the Minister in enforcing these requirements.