Robinson and Vincent Limited v Rice

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning an action for trespass to land. The appellant, Robinson & Vincent Limited, sued the respondent, Rice, for damages arising from the defendant's alleged unlawful driving of stock across the plaintiff's Western Lands leases. The defendant sought to justify his actions under section 107(1) of the Pastures Protection Act 1912 (NSW), as amended, by claiming the track used was a "road" as defined by the Act, having been ordinarily used by the public for upwards of three years. A jury had found for the plaintiff, but the Full Court of New South Wales ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by stating that public user must be without the owner's objection to qualify as a road under the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the definition of a "road" in section 4 of the Pastures Protection Act 1912, which includes "any road which has been ordinarily used for three years at least by the public," required proof of user without objection from the landowner. A secondary issue was whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the defendant's claim that the track had been ordinarily used by the public for at least three years.

The High Court, by majority, held that while the Full Court was correct in identifying a misdirection regarding the necessity of user being without objection, this did not warrant a new trial. The majority found that there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that the track had been ordinarily used by the public for the requisite three-year period. Consequently, the defendant had failed to establish the statutory defence.

Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order for a new trial, and ordered that a verdict be entered for the plaintiff for one farthing, with costs.