Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal [2008] HCA 19

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON AND KIEFEL JJ

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY APPELLANT

AND

GRANT ROYAL & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal

[2008] HCA 19

14 May 2008

S517/2007

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs. 2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 4 April 2007 as varied by the further order made by consent on 1 August 2007, and in their place order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

J E Maconachie QC with T F McKenzie for the appellant (instructed by McCabe Terrill Lawyers)

S J Harben SC with S B Lowe for the first respondent (instructed by Rankin & Nathan Lawyers)

Submitting appearance for the second respondent

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal

Torts – Causation – Motor vehicle accident – Whether design of intersection a cause of the accident.

Negligence – Causation of damage at common law – Causation in fact – Whether multiple causes of damage exist – Whether highway construction and design a material contribution to collision – Whether foreseeable risk of harm to persons such as the plaintiff – "But for" test in causation – Considerations relevant to deciding contested questions of causation – Whether correct approach taken to question of causation by Court of Appeal in reversing conclusion of primary judge – Whether existence of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) providing for contribution by tortfeasors relevant to causation in fact.

Appeal – Advantages enjoyed by primary judge in deciding contested question of causation of motor vehicle collision – Decision on question of fact – Whether Court of Appeal erred in giving effect to its own conclusion about causation – Whether Court of Appeal fulfilling duty to conduct an appeal on disputed questions of fact by reaching its own independent conclusion on the facts – Whether advantages of primary judge ought to have restrained Court of Appeal from substituting its own conclusion – Whether Court of Appeal applied incorrect legal test for deciding question of causation of motor vehicle collision.