Yeing v PG Boyle and Am Boyle - [2014] WADC 54

YEING -v- PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE [2014] WADC 54

Last Update: 02/05/2014

YEING -v- PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE [2014] WADC 54
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 54
Case No:	CIV:3237/2011	Heard:	17 FEBRUARY 2014
Coram:	SCHOOMBEE DCJ	Delivered:	24/04/2014
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	27	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim upheld in the amount of $225,691.77
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	JAMIE LAWRENCE YEING PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE
Catchwords:	Tort Whether defendant failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of fire escaping from his farming property after prescribed burning of stubble on his land Whether the failure to take all reasonable precautions caused the plaintiff's loss
Legislation:	Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B(2), s 5(C)(1)
Case References:	Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1992) 179 CLR 520 Doonan v Beacham (1953) 87 CLR 346 Indigo Mist Pty Ltd v Palmer [2012] NSWCA 239 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 Southern Properties (WA) Pty Ltd v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management [2012] WASCA 79 Sprong v Woolworth Ltd t/as Big W (2012) 86 ALJR 267 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422 Waverley Council v Ferreira (2005) Aust Tort Reports 81-818 Westina Corporation Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 213 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : YEING -v- PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE [2014] WADC 54 CORAM : SCHOOMBEE DCJ HEARD : 17 FEBRUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 3237 of 2011 BETWEEN : JAMIE LAWRENCE YEING

Plaintiff

AND

PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Whether defendant failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of fire escaping from his farming property after prescribed burning of stubble on his land - Whether the failure to take all reasonable precautions caused the plaintiff's loss

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B(2), s 5(C)(1)

Result:

Plaintiff's claim upheld in the amount of $225,691.77

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G R Hancy

Defendant : Mr J R B Ley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Greenland Legal Pty Ltd

Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1992) 179 CLR 520
Doonan v Beacham (1953) 87 CLR 346
Indigo Mist Pty Ltd v Palmer [2012] NSWCA 239
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330
Southern Properties (WA) Pty Ltd v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management [2012] WASCA 79
Strong v Woolworth Ltd t/as Big W (2012)…

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 Yeing v PG Boyle and Am Boyle 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: [2014] WADC 54
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Yeing, brought an action against the defendants, PG Boyle and Am Boyle, in relation to a fire that originated from the defendants' farming property and caused significant damage to the plaintiff's property. The defendants had undertaken prescribed burning of stubble on their land, a common agricultural practice, but failed to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the fire from escaping and spreading to the plaintiff's property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of fire escaping from their farming property and, if so, whether their failure to take all reasonable precautions caused the plaintiff's loss. The court considered whether the defendants breached their duty of care by not implementing adequate measures to prevent the fire from spreading and whether this breach directly led to the plaintiff's damages.

The court held that the defendants did indeed fail to take reasonable precautions against the risk of fire escaping from their property. It found that the defendants did not take all necessary steps to prevent the fire from spreading, including not creating an adequate firebreak and not monitoring the fire's progress. The court concluded that the defendants' failure to take these reasonable precautions was the direct cause of the plaintiff's loss. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was upheld, and the court awarded damages in the amount of $225,691.77.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim upheld in the amount of $225,691.77

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.