Legal Research
Cases
Widgee Shire Council v Bonney

Widgee Shire Council v Bonney

Link copied

Case Copied 29 April 1907 23 min read

Contents

On this page

4 CLR 977

WIDGEE SHIRE COUNCIL

PERCY BONNEY

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

QUEENSLAND. By-law- - Fulility-Divisional 1 - Boards Act 1887 (Qd.) (51 Vict. No. 7), sec. 179-

Local Authorities Act 1902 (Qd.) (2 Edw. VII. No. 19), sec. 182.

A by-law which is prima facie within the powers of the authority enacting it is not rendered invalid by reason of its prohibiting certain acts simpliciter without reference to guilty intention, nor by reason of its adding to the previously existing law governing the same subject matter.

The question whether a by-law is unreasonable is not to be determined by reference to its expediency in connection with the particular subject matter or place to which it is applied.

A by-law made by a local authority purporting to act under The Divisional Boards Act 1887 (Qd.), provided that " No person shall in any way injure or destroy the water-table, gutterway, or side drain of any road in the Division in any way whatsoever, either by crossing or driving along or into the same with any cart, dray, wagon, or other conveyance, or by casting or depositing, or causing to be deposited, therein any material calculated to impede or obstruct the course of the waterflow."

Held, that the by-law was valid. Decision of Full Court, Widgee Shire Council v. Bonney, (1907) St. R. Qd., 38, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The appellant, a local authority in a country district, having power to make by-laws for, inter alia, the regulation of traffic, prevention of injury to roads by digging or otherwise, prevention of injury to works being the property of or under the control of

4 CLR 978

the authority, the management of roads under its control, and the

general good government of the Division, passed a by-law prohibit- ing any person from in any way injuring or destroying the water- table, gutterway, or side drain of any road in the Division by crossing or driving along or into the same with any cart, wagon, or other conveyance. The respondent was convicted before a Police Magistrate for a breach of the by-law. The road was two chains wide, but only twenty feet of the centre of the roadway was formed and metalled, and this strip had a water-table or drain along each side, over which respondent had driven his dray and caused some injury. The conviction was quashed by the Full Court on the grounds that the by-law was invalid because it made every infringement an offence without reference to guilty intention, and because it was SO restrictive of the use of the road that it was unreasonable 1.

Lukin, for the appellant Council. The Council had power to make these by-laws for the protection of the roads under their control; and the by-law in question was valid and not unreason- able. In considering the validity of a by-law on the footing of its reasonableness, regard must be had to the circumstances. The Shire…

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 Widgee Shire Council v Bonney 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: [1907] HCA 11
Decision Date: 29 April 1907

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning the validity of a by-law enacted by the Widgee Shire Council. The dispute arose when the respondent, Mr. Bonney, was convicted for breaching a by-law that prohibited any person from injuring or destroying the water-table, gutterway, or side drain of a road within the Shire by driving a vehicle into or along it. The Supreme Court had quashed the conviction, finding the by-law invalid.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the by-law was within the statutory powers granted to the Shire Council and whether it was unreasonably restrictive. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the by-law's prohibition of acts without reference to guilty intention rendered it invalid, and if its restrictive nature made it unreasonable and therefore beyond the Council's legislative authority.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that a by-law is not rendered invalid simply because it prohibits certain acts without requiring proof of guilty intention, nor because it adds to existing law. The Court held that the question of a by-law's reasonableness is not to be determined by its expediency in a particular context, but rather by whether it falls within the scope of the powers conferred upon the enacting authority. The Court found that the by-law was prima facie within the Council's powers to regulate traffic and prevent injury to roads. The Court also clarified that a by-law is invalid if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have enacted it in good faith, but this was not the case here. The Court further held that the by-law was not contrary to any existing law and that the power to regulate traffic included the power to prohibit certain actions to protect road infrastructure.

The High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order nisi to quash the conviction, and ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders