Broad v Parish [1941] HCA 25

Heimann v {pl Gee, ae Maitplex Tang a Constructions

ea 964) (ong) tie

588 HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

BROAD . x E Bs 2 4 , x . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, AND PARISH AND OTHERS. : : zi . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

H.C, or A. Insurance—Compulsory insurance of motor car—Accident while car driven by

1941. uninsured person—Car held by that person under hire-purchase agreement— Se " Permit" to use car—Traffic Act 1925 (Tas.) (16 Geo. V. No, 38—26 Geo, V. SYDNEY, No. 83), secs. 3 (1), 63 (1), (2). July 29; ors Sec. 63 of the Traffic Act 1925 (Tas.) provides as follows :—" (1) Notwith- satis standing anything in this Act it shall not be lawful for any person . . . to oH oes use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle unless Metiernan and there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that person or that

other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance as complies with the provisions of this Act. (2) For the purpose of this Part and.of every policy of insurance thereunder, every person other than the owner who is at any time in charge of a motor vehicle, with the authority or acquiescence of the owner, shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner, and to be acting within the scope of his authority in relation to such motor vehicle; and any such person is in this Part called an 'agent.' "

Held, by Rich A.C.J., Starke and Williams JJ. (McTiernan J. dissenting), that the driving of a motor car by the hirer thereof under a hire-purchase agreement is a use " permitted" by the other party to the agreement within the meaning of sec. 63 (1) of the Traffic Act 1925-1935 (Tas.) so as to render such other party liable to an action for damages resulting from the breach of the duty imposed by sec. 63 (1).