High Court of Australia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LIMITED
_—_CONSUMERS. AMMONIA COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judgment delivered at......Sy.dneye W. ML. Houston, Govt. Print. Melb, on..Tnesday,..25t¢h. March..1.958_.. _
6.1978/55
EXPRESS FREIGHT PROPRIETARY LIMITED Ve
CONSUMERS AMMONIA COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
EXPRESS onK ROPR L
CONSUMERS AMMON: MPANY PROP! ARY LIMITED
JUDGME DIXON Cc.
S_FREIGHT PROPRIETARY. L. D Ve
ON S. ONTA COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITE!
On the 17th January 1956 the appellant, a company carrying on business as a carrier and haulage contractor, agreed with the respondent, for reward, to carry by road transport from Melbourne to Perth some seventy-five cylinders of anhydrous ammonia, On the journey from Melbourne to Adelaide the goods were carried in a vehicle belonging to the appellant. For the completion of its contractual obligations to deliver the goods in Perth, however, the company availed itself of the services of a company known as Southern Freight Limited and that company, in turn, employed one, King to transport the goods on the long journey from Adelaide to Perth. The type of vehicle used by King was a prime mover with a large trailer attached and the respondent's goods were carried by him with a quantity of other goods. In all the loading on his vehicle was some fifteen or sixteen tons. The respondent's goods did . not, however, reach Perth for, some 200 miles short of that | city and whilst still on King's vehicle, they were destroyed by fire. In subsequent proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria to recover damages for the loss of the goods and damage to their containers the respondent obtained judgment for £1,700 and this appeal is brought in an endeavour to set that judgment aside.
Before proceeding to deal more fully with the facts of the case it is not out of place to refer to a number of matters which were not in question upon this appeal, In the first place the appellant did not seek to question the proposition that its responsibility for the loss which occurred
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate