Ward (J and J) Pty Ltd v Williams - [1969] HCA 65

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen and Walsh JJ.

WARD (J. &J.) PTY. LTD. v. WILLIAMS

(1969) 119 CLR 318

12 December 1969

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse—Carriage of goods for reward—Goods consigned from one point in State to another—Vehicle crossed border to depot in another State—Whether journey inter-State when vehicle returned to State of origin to deliver goods at destination—Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 22—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92.

Decisions

December 12.
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. I agree entirely with the conclusion he has reached and with the reasons he has expressed for that conclusion. I do not desire to add anything to what my brother has said. (at p321)

2. I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction of the appellant quashed. (at p321)

McTIERNAN J. The evidence proves that the vehicle in question in this case carried on the highway at Hamilton eleven tons of twine which had been loaded on to the vehicle at Geelong and delivered those goods in Hamilton, both of which towns are in Victoria. It is said that the carriage of these goods on the road at Hamilton had the quality of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse. The facts upon which the defendant relies to give the carriage of these goods this quality are that the goods were part of a load of fifteen tons of twine which the appellant loaded on to the vehicle at Geelong and had contracted to carry to Hamilton, that it carried the goods by this vehicle to a depot which it conducted at Mt. Gambier for the purpose of its business as a carrier, and there unloaded four tons of the consignment of twine and loaded other goods which it had contracted to carry to the same consignee in Hamilton. When the vehicle arrived at Hamilton first it unloaded the eleven tons of twine and then unloaded the balance of the load which of course were the goods loaded on it at Mt. Gambier. It seems that the four tons of twine which were taken off the vehicle at Mt. Gambier were put on another of the appellant's vehicles and carried by that vehicle to Hamilton. The appellant was not authorized under the law of Victoria to "operate" the vehicle used to carry the load of eleven tons of twine between Geelong and Hamilton. The two factors in the company's claim to invoke s. 92 were this transfer of four tons of the original load to the other vehicle and the taking on of other goods, and the fact that the vehicle had crossed the border in going from Mt. Gambier to Hamilton. (at p321)

2. There is no doubt that s. 92 enabled the appellant to operate the vehicle across the…

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 Ward (J and J) Pty Ltd v Williams 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: [1969] HCA 65
Decision Date: 12 December 1969

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ward (J and J) Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Williams (the respondent) were parties to a dispute before the High Court of Australia concerning the appellant's liability for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when a vehicle driven by the respondent collided with a vehicle driven by the appellant's employee. The respondent alleged that the appellant's employee was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, causing the collision and the respondent's injuries.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee. This involved considering whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident. The court also had to assess the extent of the respondent's damages, if liability was established.

The court's reasoning focused on the established principles of vicarious liability. It was held that an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed in the course of their employment. The critical question was whether the employee's actions, which led to the accident, were so connected with their employment that it could be said they were acting in the course of that employment. The court examined the nature of the employee's duties and the circumstances surrounding the accident to make this determination. The court found that the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the collision.

The High Court found in favour of the respondent, upholding the finding of negligence and ordering the appellant to pay damages to the respondent.

Orders