Rolfe v Katunga Lucerne Mill Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 252

Rolfe v Katunga Lucerne Mill Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 252

Robank breached the implied condition of merchantable quality under s19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) by supplying chaff contaminated with botulism toxin. The evidence supported the inference that the contaminated chaff supplied by Robank caused the death of Sharon's Jewel and injury to other horses. The evidence did not establish that Mr Rolfe had actual knowledge of the contamination or deliberately shut his eyes to it before feeding the chaff; at most he had heard rumours or had doubts. Mere rumours, doubts, or carelessness did not constitute a novus actus interveniens, did not break the chain of causation, and did not make the losses too remote. The trial judge's contrary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Product Liability, Sale of Goods and Causation / Appeal From Judgment of Hughes DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales Dismissing the Plaintiff's Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant against the second respondent on liability, with damages to be assessed and the matter remitted to the District Court of New South Wales.
Legal Topics
['implied Condition of Merchantable Quality' 'contaminated Stock Feed' 'causation in Fact' 'novus Actus Interveniens' 'remoteness of Damage' 'appellate Review of Factual Inferences' 'admissibility of Evidence of What a Witness Would Have Said' 'recall of Defective Goods']
['contract Law' 'sale of Goods' 'product Liability' 'negligence' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['implied Condition of Merchantable Quality' 'contaminated Stock Feed' 'causation in Fact' 'novus Actus Interveniens' 'remoteness of Damage' 'appellate Review of Factual Inferences' 'admissibility of Evidence of What a Witness Would Have Said' 'recall of Defective Goods']

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

Civil Appeal Concerning Product Liability, Sale of Goods and Causation / Appeal From Judgment of Hughes DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales Dismissing the Plaintiff's Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether contaminated Katunga Lucerne chaff supplied by Robank caused the death of Sharon's Jewel and injury to other horses." 'Whether the implied condition of merchantable quality under s19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) applied to the sale of the chaff.' "Whether Mr Rolfe's knowledge of rumours or doubts about the chaff broke the chain of causation or rendered loss too remote." 'Whether the trial judge erred in inferring that Mr Rolfe had sufficient knowledge of the danger from telephone contact, a store notice, visits to the premises, later purchases of NSW chaff, or a conversation with Frank van den Nieuwboer.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting or relying on evidence from Frank van den Nieuwboer about what he would have said in a conversation he denied having.']

Ratio Decidendi

Robank breached the implied condition of merchantable quality under s19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) by supplying chaff contaminated with botulism toxin. The evidence supported the inference that the contaminated chaff supplied by Robank caused the death of Sharon's Jewel and injury to other horses. The evidence did not establish that Mr Rolfe had actual knowledge of the contamination or deliberately shut his eyes to it before feeding the chaff; at most he had heard rumours or had doubts. Mere rumours, doubts, or carelessness did not constitute a novus actus interveniens, did not break the chain of causation, and did not make the losses too remote. The trial judge's contrary...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant against the second respondent on liability, with damages to be assessed and the matter remitted to the District Court of New South Wales.

Orders

  • ['Judgment and orders in the court below in favour of the respondents/defendants to be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof judgment for the appellant/plaintiff against the second respondent/defendant on the issue of liability, damages to be assessed.' 'Matter to be remitted to the District Court of New South Wales for a...