L & A Fazzini Pty Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDDT 12

L & A Fazzini Pty Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDDT 12

Fazzini established that Amaca received a benefit at Fazzini's expense because the plaintiff's indivisible damage judgment was satisfied in the CAD proportions, but Fazzini failed to establish an unjust factor. Unlike the cross-defendant in Power Technologies, Fazzini voluntarily settled with the plaintiff, with legal advice and while denying liability, instead of requiring the plaintiff to prove his case. The Regulations did not compel Fazzini to pay unless it agreed to do so or was found liable after a hearing. Having agreed to judgment against it and payment according to the CAD, Fazzini could not obtain restitution merely because Amaca had not proved Fazzini's liability; any challenge...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Tribunal First Cross Claim Seeking Restitution Following Settlement of the Plaintiff's Dust Diseases Claim / Principal Judgment on the First Cross Claim, With Separate S 5 Contribution And/or Indemnity Proceedings Held in Abeyance
Outcome
The first cross-claim was dismissed, with Fazzini ordered to pay Amaca's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['claims Resolution Process' 'contributions Assessment Determination' 'unjust Enrichment' 'indivisible Damage' 'settlement Without Admission of Liability' 'costs']
['dust Diseases' 'restitution' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'civil Procedure'] ['claims Resolution Process' 'contributions Assessment Determination' 'unjust Enrichment' 'indivisible Damage' 'settlement Without Admission of Liability' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Dust Diseases Tribunal First Cross Claim Seeking Restitution Following Settlement of the Plaintiff's Dust Diseases Claim / Principal Judgment on the First Cross Claim, With Separate S 5 Contribution And/or Indemnity Proceedings Held in Abeyance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Amaca was required to make restitution to Fazzini for the $300,000 paid by Fazzini to the plaintiff in accordance with the Contributions Assessment Determination.' 'Whether Amaca was unjustly enriched by paying less than the full judgment sum for indivisible damage.' 'Whether Power Technologies Pty Ltd v Energy Australia [2010] NSWCA 107 required Amaca to prove that Fazzini would have been liable to the plaintiff before retaining the benefit of the CAD apportionment.' "Whether Fazzini's voluntary settlement with the plaintiff prevented it from establishing the injustice element of restitution."]

Ratio Decidendi

Fazzini established that Amaca received a benefit at Fazzini's expense because the plaintiff's indivisible damage judgment was satisfied in the CAD proportions, but Fazzini failed to establish an unjust factor. Unlike the cross-defendant in Power Technologies, Fazzini voluntarily settled with the plaintiff, with legal advice and while denying liability, instead of requiring the plaintiff to prove his case. The Regulations did not compel Fazzini to pay unless it agreed to do so or was found liable after a hearing. Having agreed to judgment against it and payment according to the CAD, Fazzini could not obtain restitution merely because Amaca had not proved Fazzini's liability; any challenge...

Court Disposition

The first cross-claim was dismissed, with Fazzini ordered to pay Amaca's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['The first cross-claim is dismissed.' "Fazzini is to pay Amaca's costs of the first cross-claim on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed." 'The costs order in (2) can be enforced forthwith.' 'I will hear the parties on an alternate costs order if an application is made within 7 days by written notification to...