Belan v Casey [2003] NSWSC 159

Belan v Casey [2003] NSWSC 159

No right of contribution at law exists between joint tortfeasors; any statutory right under s 5 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 is barred by Limitation Act 1969 s 26, as the proceedings were commenced more than two years after judgment; any equitable right of contribution fails because the payments were, except for $23,813.12, made from funds belonging to others (not the estate of Mr Belan), so the rationale for contribution does not exist, and in any event would also be statute barred by analogy; contractual or estoppel defences fail as no binding agreement or representation was made by Mr Belan to release Mr Casey from contribution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Contribution Between Tortfeasors / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application for contribution dismissed.
Legal Topics
['equitable Contribution' 'joint or Several Tortfeasors' 'limitation of Actions' 'defamation' 'statutory and Equitable Rights of Contribution']
['equity' 'torts' 'contract'] ['equitable Contribution' 'joint or Several Tortfeasors' 'limitation of Actions' 'defamation' 'statutory and Equitable Rights of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Contribution Between Tortfeasors / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a right of contribution exists at law or in equity between joint tortfeasors for payment of a judgment debt arising from defamation actions.' 'Whether any such right is statute barred under the Limitation Act 1969.' 'Whether the manner of payment of the judgment debt affects the right to contribution.' 'Whether the defendant is released from liability by contract or estoppel.']

Ratio Decidendi

No right of contribution at law exists between joint tortfeasors; any statutory right under s 5 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 is barred by Limitation Act 1969 s 26, as the proceedings were commenced more than two years after judgment; any equitable right of contribution fails because the payments were, except for $23,813.12, made from funds belonging to others (not the estate of Mr Belan), so the rationale for contribution does not exist, and in any event would also be statute barred by analogy; contractual or estoppel defences fail as no binding agreement or representation was made by Mr Belan to release Mr Casey from contribution.

Court Disposition

Application for contribution dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' 'If any application is to be made concerning costs, the parties are directed to arrange a hearing for costs within 14 days.']