Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson [1906]

Case name & citation: Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379; [1906] HCA 83

The concerned Court: High Court of Australia
Decided on: 18 December 1906
The bench of judges: Griffith C.J., Barton and O’Connor, JJ.
Area of law: Implied terms in contract; false imprisonment

Table of Contents

Facts of the Case (Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson)

In Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson (1906), the defendants, Balmain New Ferry Company, operated a ferry service that required passengers to pay a penny upon entry to the wharf and another penny upon exit. A clear notice at the wharf stipulated this rule: “a fare of one penny must be paid on entering or leaving the wharf. No exception will be made to this rule, whether the passenger has travelled by ferry or not.” The plaintiff, Robertson, paid the entry fee but missed the ferry. He then decided not to travel and attempted to leave the wharf, refusing to pay the exit fee. The defendants prevented him from leaving until he paid the penny required for exit.

Issue

The central issue was whether the defendants’ refusal to allow Robertson to leave the wharf without paying the exit fee amounted to false imprisonment.

Judgment in Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson

The court held that there was an implied term in the contract between the ferry company and Robertson that required the payment of the penny to exit the wharf. Given that Robertson had used the wharf on many previous occasions, he was deemed to be aware of the conditions set out in the notice.

Reasoning

The court concluded that Robertson was bound by the relevant clause, as it was reasonable to expect him to have known about it due to his prior use of the wharf. The court further held that the defendants were not liable for false imprisonment because the condition that one penny be paid on exit was reasonable.

Analysis of False Imprisonment

To constitute false imprisonment, there must be a total restraint on the plaintiff’s freedom of movement. In this case, the court found no false imprisonment since Robertson could have avoided the situation by paying the penny, which was a reasonable condition of his entry and exit from the wharf.

The situation was distinguished from total restraint, as seen in Bird v Jones, where it was established that a partial restraint is insufficient to constitute false imprisonment. In the Balmain case, since the plaintiff could have left the wharf by water, there was no total restraint on his movement, further supporting that there was no imprisonment.

Comparison to Other Cases

The reasoning in this case was similar to Herd v Weardale Steel Co Ltd, where the court held that an employer was not liable for false imprisonment when a miner was refused permission to be brought to the surface before the end of his shift, based on the miner’s contractual obligations.

Conclusion (Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson)

The case established that an occupier of premises could impose reasonable restrictions on the right of visitors to leave, without being liable for false imprisonment. The restrictions must be reasonable, and the implied consent of the visitor, based on awareness of the terms, plays a crucial role in determining the legality of the restraint.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Analysis of Plenty v Dillon [1991]

Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1949]: A Case Summary

MORE FROM TORT LAW: