Winton Transport Pty Ltd v Horne - [1966] HCA 51

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan A.C.J., Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

WINTON TRANSPORT PTY. LTD. v. HORNE

(1966) 115 CLR 322

26 August 1966

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Criminal Law

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Freedom of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse—Inter-State character of transaction—Carriage of same goods by two different carriers under separate agreements—First agreement to carry from town in first State over border to town in adjoining State—Second agreement to carry from that town in adjoining State to another town in first State—First carrier agent of second carrier—Second carrier intercepted—Whether second carrier protected—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 92—The State Transport Act of 1960 (Q.), s. 49.* Criminal Law—Principal offenders—Offence to use on a road in Queensland a vehicle for the carriage of goods not under permit—Vehicle owned by company and driven by its employee under instructions from its managing director—Whether company "used" on a road the vehicle—The State Transport Act of 1960 (Q.), s. 49*—The Criminal Code (Q.), s. 7.**

Decisions

August 26.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
McTIERNAN A.C.J. The appellant appeals from a conviction recorded against it in a Court of Petty Sessions at Brisbane for a breach of s. 49 of The State Transport Act of 1960 (Q.). It was alleged in the complaint that on 10th August 1963 on the Lockyer-Darling Downs Highway at Gailes in Queensland the appellant used a vehicle for the carriage of goods in respect of which no permit had been issued pursuant to the above-mentioned section. (at p326)

2. The registered office of the appellant is situated at Winton in Queensland. It conducts a carrying business with a fleet of four trucks. On the date alleged one of these trucks was intercepted by a police constable attached to the Queensland Department of Transport. The truck was carrying a load of groceries to be delivered to a store in Winton owned by one Johnston. The groceries were purchased from a Brisbane wholesaler, Thomas Brown &Sons Ltd., and had been transported by another carrying company, J. N. Nicholson's Transport Company Pty. Ltd. (Nicholson) from Brisbane to a place at Tweed Heads in New South Wales. The groceries were off-loaded there and shortly afterwards and at the same place were loaded on to the appellant's truck which was to take them to Winton. The driver of the truck was an employee of the appellant and was acting under instructions from its managing director. (at p326)

3. The order for the groceries was posted by Johnston on 7th August 1963 and the consignment instructions which he gave to Thomas Brown &Sons Ltd. were: "To Nicholson's for Winton Transport". After Thomas Brown &Sons Ltd. had received the order they delivered the groceries to Nicholson at that carrier's Brisbane depot and charged Johnston three-quarters per cent of the total invoice costs for delivery. Nicholson charged 2 pounds 12s. 6d. per ton for transporting the groceries from Brisbane to Tweed Heads and looked to the appellant for payment. The appellant then charged Johnston, the consignee,…

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 Winton Transport Pty Ltd v Horne 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: [1966] HCA 51
Decision Date: 26 August 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between Winton Transport Pty Ltd and Mr. Horne. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, Winton Transport Pty Ltd, was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of its employee, Mr. Horne, who was driving a company vehicle at the time of the accident. The Court was required to determine the scope of employment of Mr. Horne and whether his actions fell within that scope.

The Court considered the principles of vicarious liability, particularly in the context of an employer providing a vehicle to an employee. It was held that an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed in the course of employment. The Court found that Mr. Horne was driving the vehicle for a purpose connected with his employment, even though he may have deviated from his direct instructions. The provision of the vehicle by the employer was a significant factor in establishing the employer's responsibility.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming the decision of the lower court.

Orders