Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22

Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22

The District Court judgment determined only that Jackson's negligence caused damage to Goldsmith and that Goldsmith was not guilty of contributory negligence materially contributing to that damage. It did not determine whether Goldsmith breached any duty of care owed to White or was liable in respect of White's injuries. Because the issue in the third party proceedings was Goldsmith's liability for White's damage, not Goldsmith's contributory negligence in relation to his own damage, the plea of estoppel was not good and judgment on the demurrer should be entered for Jackson.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales Concerning a Demurrer in Third Party Proceedings / High Court Appeal by Leave From Judgment on Demurrer to the Third Party's Second Plea of Estoppel
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata' 'contributory Negligence' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'third Party Proceedings' 'demurrer']
['civil Procedure' 'torts' 'motor Vehicle Negligence'] ['issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata' 'contributory Negligence' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'third Party Proceedings' 'demurrer']

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 From the Supreme Court of New South Wales Concerning a Demurrer in Third Party Proceedings / High Court Appeal by Leave From Judgment on Demurrer to the Third Party's Second Plea of Estoppel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court judgment between Goldsmith and Jackson estopped Jackson from alleging in third party proceedings that Goldsmith was negligent in relation to White's injuries." "Whether the prior District Court proceedings involved the same cause of action or the same issue as Jackson's claim for contribution or indemnity under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946." 'Whether a finding that Goldsmith was not guilty of contributory negligence in relation to damage to his own vehicle necessarily determined that Goldsmith owed and breached no duty of care to White.']

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court judgment determined only that Jackson's negligence caused damage to Goldsmith and that Goldsmith was not guilty of contributory negligence materially contributing to that damage. It did not determine whether Goldsmith breached any duty of care owed to White or was liable in respect of White's injuries. Because the issue in the third party proceedings was Goldsmith's liability for White's damage, not Goldsmith's contributory negligence in relation to his own damage, the plea of estoppel was not good and judgment on the demurrer should be entered for Jackson.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'Judgment on demurrer for defendant in the action.']