CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. V. MILLS & ANOR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at-..MELBOURNE....W. W. Me Houston, Govt. Print. Melb on...... MONDAY... 18TH.FEBRUARY. AGS Pe

ea978/85

me CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES PROPRIETARY | LIMITED

ve

MILLS & ANOR.

ORDER

Appeal allowed with costs. Set aside so much of the judgment or order of the Supreme Court dated 9th February 1955 as

recites the order that the defendants Mills recover against the

defendant Chamberlain Industries Pty. Ltd. in respect of the sum

of £1500 and certain costs and as adjudges such recovery accordingly. In lieu thereof order that the claim of the defendant

Mills against the defendant Chamberlain Industries Pty. Ltd.

commenced by the notice dated 30th August 1955 be dismissed with

costs,

ON _C.

D

CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES LTD. ve MILLS _& ANOR,

JUDGE:

: i !

CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES LTD.

ve

MILLS _& ANOR.

In my opinion this appeal should be allowed and the judgment for the defendants respondents Mills against the defendant appellant company for £1500 should be discharged.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Fullagar J. and agree in them.

I am not prepared to assume that before the accident a contract of sale, conditional or otherwise, in respect of the plough had been made between these parties. I think that such evidence as there is on the subject not only fails to support such an assumption but points rather to the opposite conclusion, On the footing, however, of such an assumption I would concur too with the observations concerning the respondents' case contained in the judgment of Taylor J,, which

I have also had the benefit of reading.

CHAMBERLALN. Sate PROPRIETARY

DUC. ES iT_D MIL

JUDGMENT. WILLIAMS J.

CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES PROPR: Lin ve

MAURICE DUC: LLS a: NEST DUC. TLLS

SUDGMENT

This is an appeal by one of the defendants, Chamberlain Industries Pty. Limited, hereinafter called "Chamberlain", from part of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Tasmania which adjudged that the other two defendants, Maurice Duckett Mills and Ernest Duckett Mills, should recover from Chamberlain the sum of £1500 which the Mills brothers had been ordered to pay to the plaintiff. In order to understand the nature of the appeal it will be convenient to refer to the facts. The Mills brothers own a pastoral property in the north of Tasmania 20 miles from Launceston known as "Panshanger". Chamberlain is a Western Australian company which manufactures ploughs. It had manufactured a plough which it claimed could be towed at a high speed when ploughing or when travelling from one place to another. The plough has three wheels, two leading wheels and to one side a third trailing wheel, and all three wheels are interconnected by the steering linkage so that when the towing medium makes a turn to the right or left the wheels of the plough will turn in sympathy. It had sold a large number of these ploughs in Western Australia and had not found it necessary there to insert a split pin through the bottom of the link pins of the steering linkage of the plough in order to prevent them from coming out. There are five of these link pins in the steering linkage but the particular link pin with which we are concerned is the one at the right hand end of the linkage. The effect of this pin coming out would be to cause the right wheel of the plough to veer sharply to the right and this would cause the rear wheels