Woods v Roberts - [1998] HCATrans 294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A1 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
RODERICK JAMES WOODS
Applicant
and
MATTHEW ROBERTS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON THURSDAY, 13 AUGUST 1998, AT 4.35 PM

MRS M.E. SHAW, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.J. KOURAKIS, QC, for the applicant. (instructed by Piper Alderman)

MR D.A. TRIM, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.A. ROBERTS, for the respondent. (instructed by Phillips Fox)

GUMMOW J: Now, there is an extension required here, is there not?

MRS SHAW: There is, your Honour, depending on your interpretation of the rules, but in any event, there is an affidavit by Mr Phelps which has been filed, and I seek leave - - -

GUMMOW J: You need not bother any more about the extension; we will grant that in so far as it is needed.

MRS SHAW: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, this application raises two questions. Firstly, the extent to which a convention in a sport which existed for the purpose of not unduly inconveniencing players can absolve a person from taking any step in order to minimise or eliminate a foreseeable risk of harm to another person, which step could be taken without any inconvenience. The second question is the extent to which a person is entitled to rely on the conduct of a third person in order to make assumptions about whether others who are foreseeably at risk of harm, are not at risk.

That, the applicant submits, relies on the approach of the High Court in Baggermaatschappij Boz v Australian Shipping Commission (1980) 54 ALJR 382. In this case the Full Court proceeded on the basis that if the respondent had moved two steps to the right on the tee he probably would have seen the applicant. It did not matter whether the applicant was aware that his playing partner had called him through, because the respondent, having had the “call through” was under no obligation to move to his right on the tee to see where the applicant might be.

GUMMOW J: What is the point of general principle?

MRS SHAW: The point of general principle is the extent to which ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: We understand the end result of all this has been personally disastrous for your client, but what is the point of general principle?

MRS SHAW: the point of general principle raises a question of whether or not the duty of care has effectively been reduced and limited by reason of reliance on a convention or a practice, whether it be good or bad, such that an individual does not have to take any further care to eliminate risk to someone else, even though that step could be taken…

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 Woods v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Woods v Roberts [1998] HCATrans 294
Case: [1998] HCATrans 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Woods v Roberts* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Woods, and the respondent, Roberts, regarding the ownership of certain land. The matter came before the High Court of Australia, with Gummow and Hayne JJ delivering judgment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent, Roberts, had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. This required the court to consider the elements necessary to establish adverse possession under the relevant legislation, particularly the nature of possession required and the intention of the possessor.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the established principles of adverse possession, which require possession to be open, not secret; peaceful, not forceful; and without the consent of the true owner. Their Honours examined the evidence presented to determine if Roberts' occupation of the land met these criteria for the requisite period. The court considered whether Roberts had demonstrated an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all others, including the true owner.

Ultimately, the High Court found that Roberts had not established adverse possession of the land. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower court were set aside.

Orders