Robinson and Vincent Limited v Rice [1926] HCA 12

Robinson and Vincent Limited v Rice [1926] HCA 12

The High Court held there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that the track across the plaintiff’s land had been ordinarily used by the public for at least three years, and, therefore, the defendant’s plea under the Pastures Protection Act 1912 (N.S.W.) failed; a verdict should have been directed for the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff, Appellant: Robinson & Vincent Limited; Defendant, Respondent: John Rice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Travelling Stock, Public Roads, Rights Under Pastures Protection Act
Land Law Torts Trespass to Land Travelling Stock Public Roads Rights Under Pastures Protection Act

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robinson & Vincent Limited

Plaintiff, Appellant

John Rice

Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a track across appellant's land constituted a 'road' as defined in sec. 4 of the Pastures Protection Act 1912 (N.S.W.) as 'any road which has been ordinarily used for three years at least by the public'.
  2. 2 Whether sec. 107 of the Pastures Protection Act 1912 (N.S.W.) confers a right to drive travelling stock across such a road, regardless of the owner's objection.
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a jury finding that the track was 'ordinarily used by the public for three years'.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that the track across the plaintiff’s land had been ordinarily used by the public for at least three years, and, therefore, the defendant’s plea under the Pastures Protection Act 1912 (N.S.W.) failed; a verdict should have been directed for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Full Court (ordering a new trial) discharged.
  • Verdict entered for the plaintiff for one farthing.