Proctor & Gamble P/L v Australian Slatwall Industries P/L [2001] NSWSC 398

Proctor & Gamble P/L v Australian Slatwall Industries P/L [2001] NSWSC 398

Sarno owed ASI a duty of care because it designed and supplied componentry for the Display Units, knew the componentry was for re-supply to PG, undertook to solve design and heat problems, and knew ASI relied on it. Sarno breached that duty because the relevant componentry defects were avoidable and arose from its design or from use of unapproved ballasts. ASI's liability to PG was in respect of the same damage for which Sarno would have been liable if sued, so contribution under s 5 was available. Having regard to the rectification items attributable to Sarno, a contribution of 64.1% of the $200,000 judgment, namely $128,200, was just and equitable. Because ASI's defence costs were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Negligence, Indemnity and Contribution After Settlement of the Main Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing of Asi's Cross Claim Against Sarno After Consent Judgment Between PG and ASI
Outcome
Cross claim allowed; judgment entered for ASI against Sarno for contribution and costs.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care of Designer/manufacturer' 'defective Display Units' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'costs of Defending Settled Main Proceedings' 'leave to Proceed Against Foreign Defendant' 'foreign Torts and Presumed Identity of Foreign Law']
['negligence' 'damages' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['duty of Care of Designer/manufacturer' 'defective Display Units' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'costs of Defending Settled Main Proceedings' 'leave to Proceed Against Foreign Defendant' 'foreign Torts and Presumed Identity of Foreign Law']

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

Cross Claim for Negligence, Indemnity and Contribution After Settlement of the Main Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing of Asi's Cross Claim Against Sarno After Consent Judgment Between PG and ASI

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Sarno owed ASI a duty to take reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the componentry for the Display Units.' 'Whether Sarno breached its duty of care by defects in the componentry and by use of unapproved ballasts.' "Whether ASI could recover contribution from Sarno under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) in respect of ASI's liability to PG." "What contribution was just and equitable having regard to Sarno's responsibility for the damage." "Whether Sarno should pay a proportion of ASI's costs of defending, mediating and settling PG's claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Sarno owed ASI a duty of care because it designed and supplied componentry for the Display Units, knew the componentry was for re-supply to PG, undertook to solve design and heat problems, and knew ASI relied on it. Sarno breached that duty because the relevant componentry defects were avoidable and arose from its design or from use of unapproved ballasts. ASI's liability to PG was in respect of the same damage for which Sarno would have been liable if sued, so contribution under s 5 was available. Having regard to the rectification items attributable to Sarno, a contribution of 64.1% of the $200,000 judgment, namely $128,200, was just and equitable. Because ASI's defence costs were...

Court Disposition

Cross claim allowed; judgment entered for ASI against Sarno for contribution and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Cross Claimant in the sum of $128,200.' 'Pursuant to Part 6 Rule 9(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, the judgment may be entered immediately.' 'Pursuant to Part 6 Rule 9(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Cross Claimant may immediately enforce the judgment by execution.' 'Interest on $80,125 of...