Legal Research
Cases
Tilba Tilba Stud (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) as trustee for the Tilba Tilba Stud Trust v The Executive Officer of Agriculture Western Australia

Tilba Tilba Stud (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) as trustee for the Tilba Tilba Stud Trust v The Executive Officer of Agriculture Western Australia

Case [2004] WASC 31 3 March 2004

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: TILBA TILBA STUD (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TILBA TILBA STUD TRUST & ORS -v- THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AGRICULTURE WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2004] WASC 31

CORAM: BARKER J

HEARD: 28-31 JANUARY, 3-7 FEBRUARY, 26-28 & 31 MARCH 2003

DELIVERED : 3 MARCH 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 2344 of 2000

BETWEEN: TILBA TILBA STUD (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TILBA TILBA STUD TRUST
FRANK GORDON TAYLOR
First Plaintiffs
NANCY BROMHAM POWELL AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TILBA TILBA PROPERTY TRUST
NANCY BROMHAM POWELL AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENCHMARK TRUST
Second Plaintiffs
NANCY BROMHAM POWELL
Third Plaintiff
AND
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AGRICULTURE WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Negligence action - Action against statutory officer for acts and omissions of inspectors of stock under Stock Diseases (Regulations) Act 1968 (WA) and Enzootic Diseases Regulations 1970 (WA) and other officers of the Department of Agriculture (WA) - Whether, in exercise of powers to issue quarantine order, to release land or stock from quarantine and to permit movement of stock under quarantine, inspector (or other relevant officer) owed duty of care to owner of land or stock (and related entities) - If so, nature and extent of duty of care - Whether duty of care breached

Legislation:

Agriculture Act 1988 (WA), s 6, s 8, s 9

Enzootic Diseases Regulations 1970 (WA), reg 4, reg 5, reg 7, reg 11, reg 13, reg 15, reg 86, reg 88, reg 115

Stock Diseases (Regulations) Act 1968 (WA), s 6, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 14, s 18

Result:

Plaintiffs' action dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiffs               :     Mr L A Tsaknis
Second Plaintiffs           :     Mr L A Tsaknis
Third Plaintiff               :     Mr L A Tsaknis
Defendant:     Ms C J Thatcher & Mr C S Bydder

Solicitors:

First Plaintiffs               :     Hammond Worthington
Second Plaintiffs           :     Hammond Worthington
Third Plaintiff               :     Hammond Worthington
Defendant:     State Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1
Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35
Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; (2001) 206 CLR 1

Case(s) also cited:

Alec Finlayson Pty Ltd v Armidale City Council (1994) 51 FCR 378
Avenhouse v Council of the Shire of Hornsby (1998) 44 NSWLR 1
Bailey v Bullock [1950] 2 All ER 1167
Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Barrett v State of South Australia (1994) 63 SASR 208
Beavis v Apthorpe [1963] NSWR 1176
Board of Fire Commissioners (NSW) v Ardouin (1961) 109 CLR 105
Brickhill v…

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.

Continue reading Tilba Tilba Stud (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) as trustee for the T...

Details

AGLC: Tilba Tilba Stud (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) as trustee for the Tilba Tilba Stud Trust v The Executive Officer of Agriculture Western Australia [2004] WASC 31
Case: [2004] WASC 31
Decision Date: 3 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tilba Tilba Stud (WA) (ACN 065 413 747) as trustee for the Tilba Tilba Stud Trust, the plaintiff sought to hold the Executive Officer of Agriculture Western Australia accountable for alleged acts and omissions by inspectors and other officers under the Stock Diseases (Regulations) Act 1968 (WA) and the Enzootic Diseases Regulations 1970 (WA). The plaintiff contended that these actions constituted negligence and sought compensation for damages resulting from the imposition of quarantine on their land and livestock. The dispute was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the inspectors and other relevant officers owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and related entities when exercising their powers under the aforementioned regulations. Specifically, the court needed to determine the nature and extent of any such duty of care, and whether any breach of this duty occurred. The plaintiff argued that the officers' decisions to issue quarantine orders, release land or stock from quarantine, and permit the movement of stock under quarantine, were actions that necessitated the imposition of a duty of care.

The court examined statutory provisions and relevant case law to ascertain the existence and scope of the duty of care owed by the officers. It concluded that while the officers were indeed empowered to make decisions affecting the plaintiff's land and stock, these powers were not accompanied by a duty of care towards the plaintiff or related entities. The court held that the statutory framework did not impose such a duty, as the officers' actions were intended to protect public health and safety rather than to benefit individual landowners or stock owners. Consequently, the plaintiff's negligence claim was dismissed.

In light of the findings, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court did not order any costs to be paid by either party, reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues involved.

Orders