1. The Trigwells sued the State Government Insurance Commission in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The State Government Insurance Commission was the insurer of the other driver. The Trigwells also claimed damages against the Kerins for negligently allowing the sheep onto the road.
2.The Supreme Court found for the Kerins (using the legal principles established in Searle v Wallbank – that an owner of property adjoining a highway has no legal obligation to maintain fences and gates to prevent their animals from straying onto the road) and against the State Government Insurance Commission. The State Government Insurance Commission was required to pay damages to the Trigwells as a result of the negligent actions of the woman driving the first car. The State Government Insurance Commission was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the High Court.
3. The High Court rejected the plaintiff’s appeal, determining that the legal principles in Searle v Wallbank – that an owner of property adjoining a highway has no legal obligation to maintain fences and gates to prevent their animals from straying onto the road – still applied in Australia.
4. The High Court justices noted that, unless the parliaments of the various states legislated to override the common law in relation to stray animals, the precedent established in Searle v Wallbank would be binding on the courts. Many state governments (including Victoria) passed legislation in this area so that the same decision could not be made again – the Parliament of Victoria passed the Wrongs (Animals Straying on Highways) Act 1984 (Vic.), making owners of property liable for their animals straying onto highways.
5. This case demonstrates the supremacy of parliament as a law-making body. Provided that it is acting within the powers given to it by the Australian Constitution, parliament can override any legal principles established by courts. In this case, parliaments such as the Parliament of Victoria abrogated the decision made by the High Court.