Davis v Commissioner for Main Roads [1968] HCA 10
A majority of the High Court held that clause 7 of the contract did operate to entitle the Commissioner to indemnity from the contractor in respect of the relevant liability, thereby excluding the contractor's statutory right to contribution under s 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), and the appeal was dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['construction of Indemnity Clauses' 'statutory Contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'scope of Contractual Indemnity' 'contractual Interpretation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Does clause 7 of the contract entitle the Commissioner to be indemnified by the contractor (Davis) against the liability in respect of which contribution is sought?' "Does the statutory exclusion in s. 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) apply to prevent the appellant's claim for contribution?"]
Ratio Decidendi
A majority of the High Court held that clause 7 of the contract did operate to entitle the Commissioner to indemnity from the contractor in respect of the relevant liability, thereby excluding the contractor's statutory right to contribution under s 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment