Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (Q) [1985] HCA 69

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ. Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (Q) [1985] HCA 69

ORDER Answer the questions reserved pursuant to s. 18 of the Judiciary Act as follows:

1. Whether the Commissioner for Railways constituted pursuant to s. 8 of the Railways Acts 1914-1982 Q. is a resident of the State of Queensland within the meaning of s. 75(iv) of the Constitution?

No.

2. Whether on the facts alleged in the statement of claim in this action the State of Queensland may be held liable in damages for the negligence or breach of contract of the Commissioner for Railways or its servants or agents?

Unnecessary to answer.

Declare that the plaintiff's action is within the original jurisdiction of the Court under s. 75(iv) of the Constitution in that it involves a matter between a resident of Western Australia and the State of Queensland.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Nov. 5 Gibbs C.J.

The substantial question for decision in these proceedings is whether the present action was properly brought in the original jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is Mr. David Stanley Crouch, who is alleged to be a resident of the State of Western Australia. The defendants are the Commissioner for Railways (Queensland) ("the Commissioner") and the State of Queensland. The plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries on 6 May 1980, when he was employed by the Commissioner, or alternatively by the State of Queensland, as a labourer in a railway gang in Queensland. He alleges that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the Commissioner, or alternatively by the State of Queensland, its employees, servants or agents. Further, or in the alternative, he alleges that the injuries were caused by a breach by the Commissioner, or alternatively by the State of Queensland, of a contractual duty to take reasonable care for his safety. He claims damages. The statement of claim asserts that the action is within the Court's original jurisdiction under s. 75 of the Constitution, as being a matter between residents of different States, or alternatively between a State and a resident of another State, within s. 75(iv) of the Constitution. Section 75(iv) provides that in all matters "Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State" the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.