Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Ltd PDF

Preview

Summary

Detailed case brief including page/.paragraph references
Topic: trespass to the person...

Description

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Ltd Area of law concerned:

False Imprisonment

Court:

Privy Council (Australia)

Date:

1910

Judge:

Lord Loreburn LC

Summary of Facts:

Plaintiff purchased a one-way ferry ticket from Sydney to Balmain. He decided to leave the wharf while waiting for his ferry, and was asked to pay 1 penny. Signs near the turnstiles read “Notice. A fare of one penny must be paid upon entering or leaving the wharf. No exemption will be made to this rule, whether the passenger has travelled by the ferry or not.” Plaintiff refused to pay another penny. He tried to force his way past two employees, and managed to get through the turnstile. Robinson sued for false imprisonment.

Relief sought: Issues:

Issue of principle

Class Issue statement: Material Facts: Procedural History:

He succeeded at trial on the basis that he hadn’t seen the signs. This verdict was set aside by the rule nisi. This was discharged by the Supreme Court of NSW, two judges finding that P had no notice of the signs and a third finding that Balmain Ferry ad given reasonable public notice of the conditions for entering the wharf. The High Court of Australia found that Robinson had notice of the conditions. It was part of the contract governing his going onto the wharf. Robinson appeals.

Defendant’s arguments:

Robinson owes the defendants a penny via the contract (entered into upon going onto the wharf), so they’re entitled to imprison him until he has paid that penny. Consequence- if the court found for Robinson, it would have been a practical disaster.

Plaintiff’s arguments: Result:

Judgment for the defendants

Judge’s reasoning:

The plaintiff was merely called upon to leave the wharf in the way in which he contracted to leave it. There is no law requiring the

defendants to make the exit from their premises gratuitous to people who come there upon a definite contract which involves their leaving the wharf by another way. The defendants were entitled to resist a forcible passage through their turnstile. The notice was immaterial, however. When the plaintiff entered the defendant’s premises there was nothing agreed as to the terms on which he might go back, because neither party contemplated his going back. When he desired to do so the defendants were entitled to impose a reasonable condition before allowing him to pass through their turnstile from a place to which he had gone of his own free will. Defendants were entitled to impose a reasonable condition on exit.

Plaintiff’s conduct was unreasonable, appeal dismissed. What can be learned from this case....