J & J Ward Pty Ltd v Williams [1969] HCA 65

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Kitto, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen and Walsh JJ. J & J Ward Pty Ltd v Williams [1969] HCA 65

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Conviction quashed and order of the magistrate set aside. Matter remitted to the magistrate to dismiss the information with such orders as to costs and otherwise as are proper.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Dec. 12 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this appeal by my brother Walsh. I agree entirely with the conclusion he has reached and with the reasons he has expressed for that conclusion. I do not desire to add anything to what my brother has said.

I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction of the appellant quashed.

McTiernan J.

The evidence proves that the vehicle in question in this case carried on the highway at Hamilton eleven tons of twine which had been loaded on to the vehicle at Geelong and delivered those goods in Hamilton, both of which towns are in Victoria. It is said that the carriage of these goods on the road at Hamilton had the quality of inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse. The facts upon which the defendant relies to give the carriage of these goods this quality are that the goods were part of a load of fifteen tons of twine which the appellant loaded on to the vehicle at Geelong and had contracted to carry to Hamilton, that it carried the goods by this vehicle to a depot which it conducted at Mt. Gambier for the purpose of its business as a carrier, and there unloaded four tons of the consignment of twine and loaded other goods which it had contracted to carry to the same consignee in Hamilton. When the vehicle arrived at Hamilton first it unloaded the eleven tons of twine and then unloaded the balance of the load which of course were the goods loaded on it at Mt. Gambier. It seems that the four tons of twine which were taken off the vehicle at Mt. Gambier were put on another of the appellant's vehicles and carried by that vehicle to Hamilton. The appellant was not authorized under the law of Victoria to "operate" the vehicle used to carry the load of eleven tons of twine between Geelong and Hamilton. The two factors in the company's claim to invoke s. 92 were this transfer of four tons of the original load to the other vehicle and the taking on of other goods, and the fact that the vehicle had crossed the border in going from Mt. Gambier to Hamilton.