Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers [1966] HCA 3

Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers [1966] HCA 3

The appellant's pleas were bad because, on the proper construction of s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (NSW), a tort-feasor from whom contribution is sought is within the provision if there was any time at which the injured plaintiff could have sued and established liability in respect of the same damage. The provision does not make available to that tort-feasor a limitation defence merely because the injured plaintiff's direct claim would have been statute-barred at the date the third party notice or contribution claim was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Supreme Court Decision Upholding Demurrers to Pleas in a Third Party Contribution Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'construction of S. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (nsw)' 'third Party Notice' 'demurrer' 'limitation Defence in Contribution Proceedings']
['tort Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure'] ['contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'construction of S. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (nsw)' 'third Party Notice' 'demurrer' 'limitation Defence in Contribution Proceedings']

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 / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Supreme Court Decision Upholding Demurrers to Pleas in a Third Party Contribution Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (NSW) makes available to a defendant tort-feasor in a contribution claim a limitation defence that would have been available in an action by the injured person.' 'Whether the words "would if sued have been liable" require the hypothetical action by the injured person against the third party tort-feasor to be tested at the date of the third party claim, at the date the injured person sued the claimant tort-feasor, or at any time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's pleas were bad because, on the proper construction of s. 5 (1) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (NSW), a tort-feasor from whom contribution is sought is within the provision if there was any time at which the injured plaintiff could have sued and established liability in respect of the same damage. The provision does not make available to that tort-feasor a limitation defence merely because the injured plaintiff's direct claim would have been statute-barred at the date the third party notice or contribution claim was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']