Stoneham v Ryan's Removals Pty Ltd - [1978] HCA 59

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs A.C.J., Stephen, Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

STONEHAM v. RYAN'S REMOVALS PTY. LTD.

(1978) 143 CLR 79

19 December 1978

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse—Carriage of goods for reward—Goods consigned from one point in State to another—Other goods in same vehicle consigned interstate—Whole load taken to another State and part unloaded there—Balance of goods brought back to State of origin—Whether interstate trade, commerce or intercourse—Motor Car Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 20—Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 22 (1)*—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92. * Section 20 of the Motor Car Act 1958 (Vict.) and s. 22 (1) of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 (Vict.) are set out at p.99, (1979), 143 CLR 79

Decisions

Dec. 19.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
GIBBS A.C.J. These appeals are brought from orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria (McInerney J.) setting aside orders of a magistrate convicting the respondent of offences against s. 20 of the Motor Car Act 1958 (Vict.) and s. 22 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 (Vict.). The offences were said to have been committed on the morning of 21st October 1976, when a vehicle owned by the respondent company was used to carry goods for reward on a public road at Warrnambool in Victoria. It is not now disputed that it was proved that both offences were committed unless the carriage of the goods on the occasion in question was in the course of interstate trade, commerce or intercourse. (at p83)

2. The evidence established that on 20th October 1976 the respondent's vehicle was driven from Melbourne to Warrnambool. The respondent was a carrier, and the vehicle, a semi-trailer, was carrying goods some of which were intended for delivery in Warrnambool and others for delivery in Mt Gambier (which is in South Australia); 95 per cent of the goods carried were intended for Warrnambool. The vehicle arrived at Warrnambool at about 8.30 o'clock at night and called at the respondent's depot there. It appears that the vehicle remained in Warrnambool for some hours, but no goods were unloaded. The vehicle then went on to Mt Gambier, where the respondent had another depot. The goods intended for Mt Gambier were unloaded at that depot, and the vehicle later returned to Warrnambool, carrying the rest of the load. At about 9 a.m. on 21st October the vehicle was driven through the streets of Warrnambool to the supermarket of Woolworths, the consignee of a considerable quantity of the goods, which were then unloaded and delivered. Notwithstanding some documentation contrived by the respondent, which showed that the goods had been consigned from Melbourne to Mt Gambier, and from Mt Gambier to Warrnambool, there can be no doubt that the respondent's contract was simply to carry the goods for Woolworths from Melbourne to Warrnambool. The respondent's managing director gave a number of reasons why the goods intended for Warrnambool were carried on…

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 Stoneham v Ryan's Removals Pty Ltd 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: [1978] HCA 59
Decision Date: 19 December 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this matter were the plaintiff, Stoneham, and the defendant, Ryan's Removals Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. This required the court to consider the nature of the employment relationship between the defendant and the driver at the time of the incident and whether the driver's actions fell within the scope of that employment.

The High Court determined that the driver was an employee of Ryan's Removals Pty Ltd and that his negligent driving occurred in the course of his employment. The court applied the established principles of vicarious liability, finding that the defendant was responsible for the tortious acts of its employee committed while acting within the scope of his authority or in furtherance of the employer's business. The court affirmed that an employer is liable for the wrongful acts of its servant if such acts are done in the ordinary course of the servant's employment.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court.

Orders