Legal Research
Cases
Waters v Public Transport Corporation

Waters v Public Transport Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 3 December 1991 74 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

WATERS v. PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION

(1992) 173 CLR 349

3 December 1991

Discrimination Legislation

Discrimination Legislation—Discrimination on ground of status—Disabled persons—Direct and indirect discrimination—Whether intention or motive to discriminate necessary—Discrimination constituted by imposition of requirement or condition—No contravention where requirement or condition reasonable—Reasonableness—Onus of proof—No contravention where act done necessary to comply with provision of other legislation—Whether necessary that other legislation directly impose obligation to do discriminatory act—Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (Vict.), ss. 17(1), (5), 29(2)(b), 39(e)(ii).

Decisions

MASON C.J. AND GAUDRON J. The appellants are nine individuals ("the complainants") who lodged complaints under s.44 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (Vict.) ("the Act") and twenty-nine community organizations representing the interests of disabled persons, which organizations made allegations of discrimination that came to the attention of the Equal Opportunity Board ("the Board") established by s.8(1) of the Act. The respondent, the Public Transport Corporation ("the Corporation"), is responsible for the provision of public transport in the State of Victoria in accordance with and subject to the Transport Act 1983 (Vict.).

2. The complaints and the allegations of discrimination arose out of a direction by the Minister for Transport to introduce a number of changes to the public transport system. This appeal is concerned with two of those changes, namely, a new ticketing system for public transport and the removal of conductors from some trams. The new tickets, known as "scratch tickets", were to be purchased from retail shops and were to be validated by the traveller making a scratch mark in designated places to indicate the journey being undertaken.

3. Each of the nine complainants suffers from a disability making it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to use scratch tickets. Some of the complainants, by reason of their particular disabilities, cannot travel on trams which do not have conductors. And, of course, other persons in the same general position as the complainants are similarly affected. It was by reason of these matters that it was complained and alleged, amongst other matters, that the introduction of scratch tickets and the removal of conductors constituted discrimination against the complainants in particular and against impaired persons generally.
History of the proceedings

4. The complaints were referred to the Board under s.45 of the Act. Initially the Board took the view that it had no jurisdiction, but it was held otherwise on appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The allegations of discrimination were referred to the Board under s.42 of the Act after investigation by the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity under s.41.

5. The complaints and allegations of discrimination were heard together and, after a lengthy hearing, they were upheld to the extent that they were based on the introduction of scratch tickets and the removal of conductors. Thereupon, the Board made orders requiring the Corporation to "discontinue the scratch-ticket system as the main ticket system for the (c)omplainants" and to "refrain from implementing the driver-only tram proposal".…

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 Waters v Public Transport Corporation 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: [1991] HCA 49
Decision Date: 3 December 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Waters v Public Transport Corporation*. The case concerned a claim for damages for personal injury brought by the appellant, Mr Waters, against the respondent, the Public Transport Corporation, arising from an incident where Mr Waters was injured while attempting to board a train.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to Mr Waters in the circumstances of his boarding the train, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The Court was required to determine the scope of the duty of care owed by a public transport provider to its passengers, particularly in relation to the risks associated with boarding moving trains.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the respondent did owe a duty of care to Mr Waters. This duty extended to taking reasonable steps to prevent passengers from boarding trains that were in the process of departing. The Court reasoned that the risk of injury to passengers attempting to board a moving train was foreseeable, and that the respondent had the capacity to take reasonable precautions to mitigate this risk, such as ensuring trains did not depart until passengers had safely boarded. The principles of negligence, as established in common law, were applied to assess the reasonableness of the respondent's conduct in the circumstances.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had breached its duty of care to Mr Waters and was therefore liable for his injuries.

Orders