Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v Ryan - [1911] HCA 64

THE SYDNEY HARBOUR TRUST COM-

MISSIONERS

DEFENDANTS,

JOHN PATRICK RYAN

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Master and servant-Action against Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners--Personts

employed at daily or weekly wages-Creation of statutory corporation for public purpose-Department - of the Government-Meaning of 'employer' " -Statute SYDNEY,

binding Crown- - Action against the Crown-Sydney Harbour Trust Act 1900 Nov. 23, 24,

(N.S. W.) (1901, No. 1), sec. 17-Employers' Liability Act 1897 (N.S.W.) 27;

(No. 28), sec. 4-Claims against the Government and Crown Suits Act 1897 Dec. 4.

(N.S. W.) (No. 30).

The Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners, constituted under the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 1900, are the employers of persons engaged by them at

13 CLR 359

daily or weekly wages, within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Employers' Liability Act 1897.

The provisions of the Employers' Liability Act 1897 apply to workmen employed by the New South Wales Government.

Decision of the Supreme Court In re Ryan, 11 S.R. (N.S.W.), 33, affirmed. MISSIONERS

APPEAL from the Supreme Court.

The respondent, who had been employed by the appellants as a pantryman, brought an action against the appellants alleging that, while working in connection with the erection of a building, he was injured by the negligence of appellants' foreman and by reason of the defective material used in the construction of the stays of the building, and he claimed compensation for his injuries under the Employers' Liability Act 1897. On summons he obtained leave from the Full Court, to which the summons had been referred, under sec. 6 of that Act to proceed with the action notwithstanding that notice had not been given to the appellants in accordance with that Act: In re Ryan 1.

From that decision the appellants now by leave appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the Supreme Court was in error in holding that the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners are not the Crown, and are "employers," within the meaning of the said Act, and that the Court should have held that the Crown is not bound by the said Act.

Canaway K.C., and Ackerman, for the appellants. The appel- lants, who are the Commissioners appointed under the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 1900, are not the respondent's employers. The appellants are a body corporate with powers which are strictly limited by the provisions of the Act. Sec. 17 provides for the appointment of officers and servants by the Governor on the nomination of the Commissioners. The persons SO appointed are the servants of the Crown, and are not employés of the Com- missioners Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General 2. The Commis- sioners are merely a Department of the Government: Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v. Wailes 3. The provisions of the Public Service Act 1895 do not apply to the officers and

1II S.R. (N.S.W.), 33. 2(1906) 1 K.B., 178. 35 C.L.R., 879.

13 CLR 360

servants appointed, but their salaries are charged to the Con-

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 Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners v Ryan 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: [1911] HCA 64
Decision Date: 4 December 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned an action brought by the respondent, Mr. Ryan, against the Commissioners for compensation for injuries sustained while employed as a pantryman. Mr. Ryan had obtained leave from the Supreme Court to proceed with his action under the Employers' Liability Act 1897, despite failing to provide the required notice to the Commissioners. The Commissioners' appeal argued that they were not the respondent's employers and that the Crown, which they contended they represented, was not bound by the Employers' Liability Act.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners were the "employers" of persons engaged at daily or weekly wages within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act 1897. Secondly, whether the Employers' Liability Act 1897 applied to and bound the Crown, and by extension, the Commissioners as a statutory corporation acting for public purposes.

The Court reasoned that the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners, despite being a statutory corporation performing public functions and having their finances managed through the Treasury, were, in law and fact, the employers of individuals engaged at daily or weekly wages. This conclusion was based on the specific provisions of the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 1900, particularly the proviso in section 17 which vested the sole power of appointing and removing such workmen in the Commissioners. The Court also considered the broader principle that when a government, through a statutory corporation, engages in enterprises previously undertaken by private individuals, it should be subject to the same liabilities. Furthermore, the Court held that the Employers' Liability Act 1897 did bind the Crown. This was based on the interpretation that the Act provided a remedy for wrongs, and the Claims against the Government and Crown Suits Act 1897 had established that the Crown could be sued for torts in the same way as a subject. The Court distinguished this from the Workmen's Compensation Act 1910, which created entirely new causes of action and thus required express provision to bind the Crown.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the Commissioners were found to be the employers of the respondent, and the Employers' Liability Act 1897 was held to apply to them.

Orders