A landmark case with regards to false imprisonment and its nexus with contract law

1. Essential facts : • The appellant ran a business involving the travel of
harbour stream ferries between Sydney and Balmain.
• Fares were collected at the Sydney wharf side through the operation of
two turnstiles, one for entry and the other for exit.
• Each turnstile required the payment of 1 penny and were located on the
street side of the Sydney wharf, with a small gap of approximately 8.5inches located between the turnstiles and the wall.
• Two officers were employed to collect the fare
• A notice was hung in clear view on entry to the wharf that read "Notice. 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
the ferry or not".
• The evening of the 5th of June 1906 the respondent entered the
appellant’s business intending to catch a ferry to Balmain
• They paid the due fare at the Sydney side entry turnstile.
• They wished to depart and use a different service and were told by an
officer that the only way out involved the payment of another penny through
the exit turnstile
• The respondent tried to force their way through the 8.5-inch gap without
payment and was stopped by the officer. And threatened with a fist.
• Despite opposing force, the respondent gained access to the street
through the gap.
He later on came back undeterred and they let him know that he had not
paid the previous penny.

2. 
At the time of the case, there was
longstanding authority that a person
could not imprison another to enforce a
breach of contract in the absence of
some independent lawful authority (that
is, a statute or judicial process).

3. High court





As a result of his experiences, Robertson brought an action
against the company for assault and false imprisonment.
trial judge, Darley CJ,
The companies primary defense was that the employees acted
out of their course of employment hence they are not vicariously
liable.
Trial judge was of the view that companies cannot behave In
this way ‘These companies should know that they had no right
to detain any person. It was not a case of cheating. No doubt
the plaintiff suffered a good deal of annoyance by being placed
in a position which caused people to think that he was trying to
evade the payment of his fare’
The judge found that there actions could not be justified and
that this was a question solely on damages, the judge rejected
that mr robertson was bound by the notice the jury rested and
on their verdict they awarded 100 euros in favour of mr
robertson

4. Supreme Court










Immediately after the high courts ruling the ferry company sought a rule nisi which was
granted on three grounds. The first related to the decision on vicarious liability whilst
the latter two concerned the failure of Darley CJ to direct the jury that Robertson was
bound by the notice.
The court rejected and said that reasonable notice was not a matter of discussion here
because he had oftenly used the transport service hence that term had been
incorporated in the contract in the course of dealings.
He couldn't simply abandon the implied contract and expect to walk away a free man
without paying!
- The material facts of the case do not constitute a total deprivation of liberty
- To the degree that liberty was deprived, it was done with lawful justification
- Total deprivation of liberty is not a sustainable claim if reasonable means of escape,
through the completion of one’s contract or otherwise, are readily available He had an
option of swimming or paying up.
It is legal to enter into a contract involving the temporary surrender of a portion of one’s
liberties
- A person involved in said contract is not necessarily entitled to the immediate
cessation of this contract, and subsequently is not necessarily entitled to his liberties at
once
By a majority, the Full Court held that there should be no new trial on the question of
damages, effectively saying that the condition was of no importance at all in
determining liability and quantum
Consent, express or implicit is a complete defense for the Tort of False Imprisonment

5. Nexus between contracts
and false imprisonment?
First, it might have operated as a
justification — lawful authority — to
detain a person who was in breach of
the ferry company’s conditions.
 Second, and importantly, in the context
of false imprisonment, it might operate
by implying that the plaintiff consented
to any imprisonment.
