Northern Territory v Mengel

Last updated

Northern Territory v Mengel
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided19 April 1995
Citation(s) [1995] HCA 65, (1995) 185  CLR  307
Transcript(s)
Case history
Prior action(s)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ
Laws applied
This case overturned a previous ruling
Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith [1966] HCA 49, (1966) 120 CLR 145

Northern Territory v Mengel, [1] was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 19 April 1995. The decision dealt with the conceptual framework of tort law and held that liability under tort depended on the plaintiff establishing the defendant was either negligent or intended to cause harm to the plaintiff. It overruled the decision in Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith . [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Facts

The Mengel family owned Neutral Station, a cattle station 200 km north of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. They purchased Banka Banka Station which had slightly better rainfall so they could move cattle there in a drought. One of their heifers had reacted to a test that indicated a possibility that it was infected with brucellosis. Two inspectors from the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, as part of a government-sponsored campaign to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle, told the Mengels that there were restrictions on the movement of their cattle which meant they were only able to be moved to an abattoir for slaughter. It was later accepted that there was no statutory or other authority for the acts of the Inspectors.

Prior actions

In the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (NT) Asche CJ held that the Mengels were entitled to recover damages for an action on the case based on the decision in Beaudesert, [2] awarding the Mengel family damages of $305,371 plus interest. [4]

The Northern Territory appealed against the decision, while the Megel family cross-appealed against the amount of damages awarded. The Full Court, Priestley J, with whom Angel and Thomas JJ agreed, dismissed the government's appeal and increased the damages to $425,125 plus interest. [3] [5]


Judgement

The majority judgment was that of Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ, holding that the Northern Territory's appeal should be upheld and the Mengel's claim dismissed. Brennan and Deane JJ each gave separate judgments but largely agreed with the majority. [3]

Were the Beaudesert requirements satisfied

It was held in Beaudesert that "independently of trespass, negligence or nuisance but by an action for damages upon the case, a person who suffers harm or loss as the inevitable consequence of the unlawful, intentional and positive acts of another is entitled to recover damages from that other" [2] : p 156 

The majority held that claim was not within the Beaudesert principle because :

what happened was that the Inspectors told the Mengels that there were movement restrictions when, in fact and in law, there were none. That did not involve an act forbidden by law in any relevant sense. Nor did it require authority in a way justifying its description as "unauthorized". ... Damage was suffered when the Mengels acted on the basis that their cattle were subject to the movement restrictions communicated to them and, even if it is assumed that that was likely to happen in the ordinary course, there is nothing to suggest that it was bound to happen. [1] : p 337–8 

Should Beaudesert be overruled

The majority reconsidered the decision in Beaudesert and held that it should not be followed because of the:


See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Toohey (judge)</span> Former justice of the High Court of Australia (1930–2015)

John Leslie Toohey, AC, QC was an Australian judge who was a Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1987 to 1998.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty of care</span> Legal standard of care in activity

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Misleading or deceptive conduct is a doctrine of Australian law.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

<i>Cattanach v Melchior</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. It was held by a majority of the High Court that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<i>New South Wales v Fahy</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

On 22 May 2007, the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment in the case of New South Wales v Fahy. The proceedings were started by Gemma Fahy, a former police officer in New South Wales, who sued the state for failing to provide a safe working environment. The Court also considered whether Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, the main Australian test for a breach of duty of care, should be overturned - in the end, ruling that it remains good law.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

In Australia, murder is a criminal offence where a person, by a voluntary act or omission, causes the death of another person with either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. It may also arise in circumstances where the accused was committing, or assisting in the commission, of a different serious crime that results in a person's death. It is usually punished by life imprisonment.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and excise duties. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

<i>Queensland v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Queensland v Commonwealth, also known as the Second Territory Senators' Case, was an important decision of the High Court of Australia regarding the representation of territories in the Australian Parliament. The case involved a re-argument of the High Court's decision in Western Australia v Commonwealth (1975), in which the High Court had held legislation providing for Senate representation for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to be constitutionally valid. The High Court again found the legislation to be constitutional and, additionally, that legislation providing for territory representation in the House of Representatives was also valid.

Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia deals with matters relating to the governance of Australian territories. It gives the Commonwealth Parliament complete legislative power over the territories. This power is called the territories power. The extent and terms of the representation of the territories in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also stated as being at the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament.

<i>Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Northern Territory v Mengel [1995] HCA 65 , (1995) 185 CLR 307(19 April 1995), High Court.
  2. 1 2 3 Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith [1966] HCA 49 , (1966) 120 CLR 145(26 August 1966), High Court.
  3. 1 2 3 Jordan, H (29 January 1995). "Obituary For Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith". Deakin Law Review. (1995) 2(2) Deakin Law Review 275.
  4. ↑ Mengel v Northern Territory [1992] NTSC 124 , (1992) 109 FLR 411(28 August 1992), Supreme Court (NT).
  5. ↑ Northern Territory v Mengel [1994] NTSC 37 , (1994) 95 NTR 8(12 April 1994), Supreme Court (Full Court) (NT).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.