Lane v Bushby [2000] NSWSC 1029

Lane v Bushby [2000] NSWSC 1029

No implied term exists requiring indemnity by a partner for ordinary negligence; s 24 Partnership Act 1892 requires equal contribution to losses unless gross or culpable negligence or wilful misconduct is present. The defendant's negligence was not gross or culpable. The plaintiffs are not entitled to contribution or indemnity under s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act because the defendant is entitled to indemnity under s 24(2).

Parties
Plaintiff: Adrian John Lane; Plaintiff: Robert Hartley Anderson; Plaintiff: Anthony John Roberts; Plaintiff: Philip Densham White; Plaintiff: Benjamin Geoffrey Martin; Plaintiff: Mark William Mackrell; Plaintiff: Mark Andrew Gray-Spencer; Defendant: Phillip Andrew Bushby
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms in Partnership, Partner Liability for Negligence, Right to Indemnity and Contribution
Partnership Law Tort Law Implied Terms in Partnership Partner Liability for Negligence Right to Indemnity and Contribution

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian John Lane

Plaintiff

Robert Hartley Anderson

Plaintiff

Anthony John Roberts

Plaintiff

Philip Densham White

Plaintiff

Benjamin Geoffrey Martin

Plaintiff

Mark William Mackrell

Plaintiff

Mark Andrew Gray-Spencer

Plaintiff

Phillip Andrew Bushby

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term requires a negligent partner to indemnify other partners for liability to third parties
  2. 2 Whether partners are entitled to contribution from a partner responsible for loss
  3. 3 Application of s 24 Partnership Act 1892 and s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946

Ratio Decidendi

No implied term exists requiring indemnity by a partner for ordinary negligence; s 24 Partnership Act 1892 requires equal contribution to losses unless gross or culpable negligence or wilful misconduct is present. The defendant's negligence was not gross or culpable. The plaintiffs are not entitled to contribution or indemnity under s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act because the defendant is entitled to indemnity under s 24(2).

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs