Ferrier v Wilson [1906] HCA 77

Ferrier v Wilson [1906] HCA 77

Regulation 139 is valid, not ultra vires, as it does not contradict sec. 86 of the Sydney Harbour Trust Act and is within the powers conferred by the Act. The regulation imposes liability only if material is allowed to fall due to negligence or default of the owner or person to whom control is delegated. Owner is not liable for every contingency, but for absence of reasonable care leading to material falling into port.

Parties
Appellant: Ferrier; Respondent: Wilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Remittal to Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration by Magistrate
Legal Topics
Validity of Regulations, Ultra Vires, Mens Rea in Regulatory Offences, Responsibility of Licensee
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Validity of Regulations Ultra Vires Mens Rea in Regulatory Offences Responsibility of Licensee

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ferrier

Appellant

Wilson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Remittal to Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 139 was ultra vires under the Sydney Harbour Trust Act 1901
  2. 2 Whether a licensee-owner is liable for material falling from a lighter due to negligence
  3. 3 Whether absence of mens rea defeats the validity of the regulation

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 139 is valid, not ultra vires, as it does not contradict sec. 86 of the Sydney Harbour Trust Act and is within the powers conferred by the Act. The regulation imposes liability only if material is allowed to fall due to negligence or default of the owner or person to whom control is delegated. Owner is not liable for every contingency, but for absence of reasonable care leading to material falling into port.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration by Magistrate

Orders

  • Case remitted to Magistrate for determination in accordance with the High Court's construction of Regulation 139