Hamcor Pty Ltd & Anor v Qld

[2015] QCA 183

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Statutory immunity from liability
4. › Fire and rescue services
5. › Whether application of water to fire was act done 'pursuant to' statute
6. › Whether statutory immunity available where conduct found to be negligent at common law
7. › Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (Qld), ss 53(1), 129(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of immunity provisions
3. › Meaning of 'pursuant to' a statute
4. › Whether act must be specifically listed in statute to be 'directly authorised'
5. › Distinction between acts done 'pursuant to' and 'for the purposes of' a statute
6. › Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (Qld), s 129(1)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Unreasonableness
3. › Wednesbury unreasonableness
4. › Distinction between negligence at common law and unreasonableness in administrative law sense
5. › Whether conduct negligent at common law was also unreasonable in Wednesbury sense
6. › Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 36(2)
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Standard of care
4. › Public authorities
5. › Modified standard of care for exercise of statutory powers
6. › Distinction between common law negligence and Wednesbury unreasonableness
7. › Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 36

Quick Take

An act done by a statutory authority falls within the first limb of a 'pursuant to' statutory immunity provision if it falls within a broad description of authorised acts in the statute (such as 'any reasonable measure'), even if not specifically listed. The word 'reasonable' in such a broad empowering provision bears a Wednesbury sense, not a common law negligence sense, so that conduct may be negligent at common law yet still be a 'reasonable measure' for the purposes of the statutory power and thus attract immunity. A finding of breach of common law duty of care is in no sense probative of Wednesbury unreasonableness.