Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd v Steel Mains Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 23

Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd v Steel Mains Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 23

Steel Mains Pty Ltd could not maintain its cross-claim because the workman's earlier injury while employed by Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd and his later injury while employed by Steel Mains Pty Ltd were separate injuries caused by separate and distinct torts. Dillingham was not liable as a tortfeasor in respect of the damage caused by Steel Mains, and the two tortfeasors were not liable for the same damage within s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 N.S.W. Section 78 of the Supreme Court Act, 1970 N.S.W. was procedural only and could not supply a substantive basis for the cross-claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Contribution Proceedings / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'same Damage' 'successive Injuries' 'negligence' 'striking Out Cross Claim']
['torts' 'civil Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'same Damage' 'successive Injuries' 'negligence' 'striking Out Cross Claim']

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

Appeal in Negligence Contribution Proceedings / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Steel Mains Pty Ltd could recover contribution or indemnity from Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd under s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 N.S.W. in respect of damages payable for a later workplace injury where Dillingham had caused an earlier similar injury to the same workman.' 'Whether s. 78 of the Supreme Court Act, 1970 N.S.W. provided an independent basis for maintaining the cross-claim.' 'Whether the cross-claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

Steel Mains Pty Ltd could not maintain its cross-claim because the workman's earlier injury while employed by Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd and his later injury while employed by Steel Mains Pty Ltd were separate injuries caused by separate and distinct torts. Dillingham was not liable as a tortfeasor in respect of the damage caused by Steel Mains, and the two tortfeasors were not liable for the same damage within s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 N.S.W. Section 78 of the Supreme Court Act, 1970 N.S.W. was procedural only and could not supply a substantive basis for the cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal Division) set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.' 'Order of Collins J. striking out the cross-claim restored.']