Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990]
Share
Commonwealth v Bernard Leonardus Verwayen [1990] HCA 39, also known as the Voyager case, is a notable legal decision in Australia. The case involves the application of estoppel in the context of a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy and the subsequent legal proceedings brought by Bernard Leonardus Verwayen against the Australian government.
Bernard Verwayen, an electrical mechanic in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), sued the Australian government for damages resulting from a collision between two RAN ships, HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne, in 1964. The collision occurred during naval training exercises.
Initially, the Australian government admitted negligence in the death of a civilian, Horace Parker, caused by the collision. The government also changed its policy to allow military members to sue for damages caused by the negligence of fellow members. This change in policy prompted Verwayen's potential lawsuit. The government, at first, indicated it would admit negligence and waive the limitation period for Verwayen's claim. In 1984, Verwayen commenced proceedings, but the government argued in court that it did not owe a civil duty of care to servicemen engaged in operational training and the limitation period should bar Verwayen's claim.
The Supreme Court of Victoria initially ruled in favour of the government, stating that Verwayen did not alter his position in reliance on the promise sufficiently for promissory estoppel. Verwayen appealed, and the Full Court reversed the decision, citing the High Court's decision in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988], which established that promissory estoppel could constitute a cause of action.
The High Court, with a split decision, dismissed the government's appeal. The majority found that the government was estopped from pleading the limitation period defence. Justices Deane and Dawson held that estoppel prevented the government from disputing its liability, emphasising the false hope created and stress endured by Verwayen. Justices Toohey and Gaudron found that the government had waived its right to rely on the limitation defence.
Bernard Verwayen, an electrical mechanic in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), sued the Australian government for damages resulting from a collision between two RAN ships, HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne, in 1964. The collision occurred during naval training exercises.
Initially, the Australian government admitted negligence in the death of a civilian, Horace Parker, caused by the collision. The government also changed its policy to allow military members to sue for damages caused by the negligence of fellow members. This change in policy prompted Verwayen's potential lawsuit. The government, at first, indicated it would admit negligence and waive the limitation period for Verwayen's claim. In 1984, Verwayen commenced proceedings, but the government argued in court that it did not owe a civil duty of care to servicemen engaged in operational training and the limitation period should bar Verwayen's claim.
The Supreme Court of Victoria initially ruled in favour of the government, stating that Verwayen did not alter his position in reliance on the promise sufficiently for promissory estoppel. Verwayen appealed, and the Full Court reversed the decision, citing the High Court's decision in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988], which established that promissory estoppel could constitute a cause of action.
The High Court, with a split decision, dismissed the government's appeal. The majority found that the government was estopped from pleading the limitation period defence. Justices Deane and Dawson held that estoppel prevented the government from disputing its liability, emphasising the false hope created and stress endured by Verwayen. Justices Toohey and Gaudron found that the government had waived its right to rely on the limitation defence.
