Legal Research
Cases
WRB Transport v Chivell

WRB Transport v Chivell

Case [1998] SASC 7002 23 December 1998

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Relevance of Evidence

Administrative Law

Jurisdiction

Type to search within this case.

WRB TRANSPORT & ORS v CHIVELL
[1998] SASC S7002

Full Court: Prior, Mullighan and Lander JJ

PRIOR J. The applicants sought relief in the nature of prohibition or an injunction preventing the State Coroner from proceeding to hold an inquest into six deaths which occurred on 3 August 1996 or to continue with the proceedings until there had been a determination as to the exclusion of evidence in material proposed to be adduced in a hearing before the Coroner. The applicants also sought an order preventing the Coroner from receiving evidence from some 19 persons and a declaration that if, contrary to the order sought, the Coroner were to call these 19 additional witnesses it would be beyond the power of the Coroner. The Coroner was said to have erred in law in refusing the request of the applicants to exclude evidence from these additional witnesses.
There is no dispute that six people died as a result of a motor accident in which a truck owned by the applicant company and driven by its employee Snewin collided with motor vehicles in which the six deceased were travelling. After the accident Snewin was charged with six counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He has been convicted and sentenced with respect to those charges.
The applicants were informed in September of this year that there was to be a coronial inquest into the deaths of the deceased persons. Their solicitors were given statements of proposed witnesses. Those statements indicated that it was the intention of counsel assisting the Coroner to invite the Coroner to call witnesses to give evidence that certain employees of the applicant company supplied tablets to its drivers and, in addition, that these drivers were under pressure to drive for periods of time far in excess of that permitted by law.
The applicants sought a ruling from the Coroner to have the evidence excluded from the inquiry on the ground that it was irrelevant to the matter before the Coroner. The Coroner ruled the evidence was both relevant and admissible even if the Coroner’s inquiry were to be confined to the circumstances of the particular accident and why Snewin drove as he did on 3 August 1996. As to that the Coroner said that the evidence sought to be excluded should be received. In his view:-
“If accepted, it tends to show a work practice, a culture…, a course of conduct which puts into context the events of 3 August 1996. It goes to the likelihood as to whether what occurred, occurred in the circumstances described by Mr Snewin and assists in the determination of whether what he did was done with the connivance, assistance, knowledge, consent or tacit acceptance of his employers, or whether, as Mr Trim argues, he was on a frolic of his own.
In my view this ruling is particularly strengthened by the reminder that this is an inquiry. It is not a criminal or a civil proceeding. As I am advised, there will…

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 WRB Transport v Chivell

Details

AGLC: WRB Transport v Chivell [1998] SASC 7002
Case: [1998] SASC 7002
Decision Date: 23 December 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in WRB Transport v Chivell sought relief in the form of prohibition or an injunction to prevent the State Coroner from proceeding with an inquest into the deaths of six people who died in a motor vehicle accident on 3 August 1996. The applicants also sought an order preventing the Coroner from receiving evidence from 19 additional witnesses and a declaration that if the Coroner were to call these witnesses, it would be beyond the Coroner's power. The Coroner had ruled that evidence regarding work practices and drug use within the applicant company was relevant and admissible for the inquest. The applicants argued that the Coroner had erred in law by refusing to exclude this evidence.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the evidence regarding work practices and drug use was relevant to the cause or circumstances of the deaths, and whether the Coroner had exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding to receive this evidence. The court had to consider the scope of the Coroner's jurisdiction under the Coroners Act 1975 and whether the Coroner had made a jurisdictional error by deciding to admit the evidence in question.

The Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Coroner had not made a jurisdictional error in admitting the evidence. The court reasoned that the Coroner's jurisdiction under s 12 of the Coroners Act 1975 was broad, extending to both the cause and circumstances of death. The court found that the evidence regarding work practices and drug use was relevant to the circumstances surrounding the deaths and could potentially inform the Coroner's recommendations to prevent similar incidents in the future. The court also held that the ruling on the admissibility of evidence made by the Coroner was not indicative of jurisdictional error, as the evidence appeared to be relevant to the inquest.

The court's decision was that no jurisdictional error was evident in the Coroner's ruling, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's reasoning was based on the broad scope of the Coroner's jurisdiction and the relevance of the evidence to the circumstances of the deaths and potential recommendations to prevent similar incidents. The court found that the Coroner had not exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding to admit the evidence in question.

Orders