Municipal Tramways Trust v Scott [1919] HCA 46
The conduct of the plaintiff in refusing to give his name and address did not constitute obstruction of the servants of the defendant Trust in the performance of their duties, and the seizure and detention were not justified under the Act or by-laws.
- Parties
- Appellant: Municipal Tramways Trust; Appellant: Edward John Turver; Appellant: Thomas William Edward Lang; Appellant: Albert Edward Ovenden; Respondent: William Charles Scott
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 1919
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia; Judgment of High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Assault, Justification, Interpretation of Statutory and by Law Provisions, Obstruction of Duty
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Municipal Tramways Trust
Appellant
Edward John Turver
Appellant
Thomas William Edward Lang
Appellant
Albert Edward Ovenden
Appellant
William Charles Scott
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia; Judgment of High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether refusal by a passenger to give name and address constitutes obstruction of tramway official in performance of duty under Municipal Tramways Trust Act 1906 (S.A.) section 95
- 2 Whether such refusal justifies seizure and detention under section 96
Ratio Decidendi
The conduct of the plaintiff in refusing to give his name and address did not constitute obstruction of the servants of the defendant Trust in the performance of their duties, and the seizure and detention were not justified under the Act or by-laws.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellants to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment