Blyth v Hudson [1929] HCA 3

Blyth v Hudson [1929] HCA 3

A vehicle which is used or intended to be used for carrying passengers for reward at separate and distinct fares for each passenger falls within the statutory definition of 'motor omnibus', even if the fares are not paid to the owner or driver but to a third party. The true test is the use of the vehicle for such carriage, not the recipient of the fares.

Parties
Informant: William Frederick Blyth; Defendant/appellant: George Hudson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria, on Special Leave to the High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Motor Omnibus Licensing, Statutory Interpretation, Enforcement of Licensing Requirements
Administrative Law Transport Law Motor Omnibus Licensing Statutory Interpretation Enforcement of Licensing Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Frederick Blyth

Informant

George Hudson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria, on Special Leave to the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a vehicle is a 'motor omnibus' under sec. 3 of the Motor Omnibus (Urban and Country) Act 1927 (Vict.) when the owner receives a lump sum and fares are collected by another party
  2. 2 Whether the Act requires the owner/driver to personally collect separate and distinct fares from passengers for the vehicle to fall within the definition

Ratio Decidendi

A vehicle which is used or intended to be used for carrying passengers for reward at separate and distinct fares for each passenger falls within the statutory definition of 'motor omnibus', even if the fares are not paid to the owner or driver but to a third party. The true test is the use of the vehicle for such carriage, not the recipient of the fares.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment of the Supreme Court is reversed.
  • The order nisi is discharged with costs.