GEC Alsthom Australia Ltd v City of Sunshine & Ors [1996] FCA 60

GEC Alsthom Australia Ltd v City of Sunshine & Ors [1996] FCA 60

Sunshine is contractually obliged to indemnify GEC for any direct loss, including lost revenue, suffered due to failure to supply 95 GJ/hr gas under the Gas Supply Agreement, less any savings and royalties; Maunsell is liable to Sunshine for loss flowing from negligent advice or misleading representations on which Sunshine relied when providing the gas guarantee, but is not liable to GEC; GEC was not contributorily negligent for the plant's management under the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant / First Cross Respondent: GEC Alsthom Australia Limited; First Respondent / Cross Applicant: City of Sunshine; Second Respondent / Second Cross Respondent: Maunsell Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Applicant (GEC) against City of Sunshine and for City of Sunshine against Maunsell; GEC's claims against Maunsell dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Damages, Indemnity, Contributory Negligence
Contract Law Tort Law Trade Practices Law Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages Indemnity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GEC Alsthom Australia Limited

Applicant / First Cross Respondent

City of Sunshine

First Respondent / Cross Applicant

Maunsell Proprietary Limited

Second Respondent / Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sunshine breached the Gas Supply Agreement by failing to supply the guaranteed quantity and quality of gas to GEC.
  2. 2 Whether damages or indemnity under the contract/deed of indemnity are payable, and the scope of 'direct loss'.
  3. 3 Whether Maunsell owed a duty of care and breached such duty to Sunshine and/or GEC in its reports and advice concerning the gas field.

Ratio Decidendi

Sunshine is contractually obliged to indemnify GEC for any direct loss, including lost revenue, suffered due to failure to supply 95 GJ/hr gas under the Gas Supply Agreement, less any savings and royalties; Maunsell is liable to Sunshine for loss flowing from negligent advice or misleading representations on which Sunshine relied when providing the gas guarantee, but is not liable to GEC; GEC was not contributorily negligent for the plant's management under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Applicant (GEC) against City of Sunshine and for City of Sunshine against Maunsell; GEC's claims against Maunsell dismissed.

Orders

  • DECLARE that Sunshine is obliged to indemnify GEC for any direct loss attributable to failure to supply 95 GJ/hr gas for 10 years from 1 March 1992.
  • ORDER inquiry into the amount due from Sunshine to GEC from 6 April 1992 to judgment.