Schiller v Mulgrave Shire Council - [1972] HCA 60

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. Barwick C.J., Walsh and Gibbs JJ.

SCHILLER v. MULGRAVE SHIRE COUNCIL.

(1972) 129 CLR 116

24 November 1972

Negligence—Crown lands—Appeal

Negligence—Public authority—Scenic reserve—Injuries to persons entering reserve—Entry as of right—Duty to public—Vested statutory power of control—Extent of occupation. Crown lands—Reservations for public purposes—Land under control of trustees—Whether trustee occupier—Duty of trustee to public entering as of right—The Land Acts, 1910 to 1962 (Q.), ss. 180 (1), 181.* Appeal—High Court—Omission of trial judge to make necessary finding of fact—Credibility of witnesses not involved and evidence not seriously in conflict—Finding by High Court. *The Land Acts, 1910 to 1962 (Q.) provided: "180 (1). The Governor in Council may, from time to time grant in trust, or by Order in Council reserve from sale or lease, either temporarily or permanently, any Crown land which, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is or may be required for public purposes. ... 181 (1). The Governor in Council may, by Order in Council and without issuing any deed of grant, place any land reserved, either temporarily or permanently, for any public purpose under the control of trustees; and may declare the style or title of such trustees and the trusts of the land. Such trustees are hereinafter referred to as trustees of reserves. (2) A Local Authority or other local body constituted by statute may be appointed trustee of a reserve."

Decisions

November 24.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this appeal by my brother Walsh. The relevant facts and circumstances including the statutory provisions are there recited. I fully agree with the conclusion of my brother Walsh that the respondent Council, by reason of its trusteeship of the reserve in which the appellant was injured and s. 184 (1) of The Land Acts, 1910 to 1962 (Q.) was under a duty of care towards those who lawfully used the reserve. I agree that that duty was not limited in nature and extent to the duty owned by an occupier of land to a person coming or being upon it by his permission. I also agree with my brother's conclusion that, even if that obligation be regarded as not higher in nature and extent that the duty of an occupier towards an invitee, the respondent was in breach of its obligation towards the appellant. (at p120)

2. However, in my opinion, the categories of ascending duty of an occupier of land towards those persons who have no right to be upon it other than such right as may have been created expressly or impliedly by him are not appropriate to express the duty of a person in authority having the care and control of land or premises towards persons coming upon that land or premises in the exercise of a right either held commonly by the public, or held by a class of which he is a member. For my part, the capacity to…

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 Schiller v Mulgrave Shire Council 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: [1972] HCA 60
Decision Date: 24 November 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schiller (the appellant) brought an action against the Mulgrave Shire Council (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking damages for negligence. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged failure to properly maintain a road, which the appellant claimed led to injuries sustained when his vehicle left the road and overturned. The case proceeded to the High Court of Australia on appeal.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent Council owed a duty of care to the appellant in relation to the maintenance of the road, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Central to this was the question of whether the Council had taken reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to users of the road, particularly in light of the road's condition and the circumstances of the accident.

The Court considered the principles of negligence, particularly the duty of care owed by a local authority to road users. It was held that a local authority has a duty to maintain roads under its control in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to taking reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks. The Court examined the evidence regarding the condition of the road, the Council's knowledge of any defects, and the adequacy of the measures taken by the Council to address those defects. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders