McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1814

McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1814

Although the Court had discretion to reopen the issue, the liability determination was intended to be final on specified issues and reopening should occur only in a clear case where the earlier decision is incontestably wrong. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd did not compel the conclusion that the earlier categorisation was erroneous, because the High Court still required a connecting link beyond foreseeability in pure economic loss cases. Once the claims moved away from the cattle or meat trail, categories (v), (vi) and (vii) lacked that connecting link. The application to reopen was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application to Reopen Previous Determination of Categories of Persons to Whom Respondents Owed a Duty Not to Cause Pure Economic Loss / Application to Reconsider Liability Determination Before Formal Order Entered and Before All Negligence Claims Resolved
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['reopening Interlocutory Judgment' 'duty of Care' 'foreseeability and Proximity' 'finality of Litigation' 'representative/group Member Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'negligence' 'pure Economic Loss'] ['reopening Interlocutory Judgment' 'duty of Care' 'foreseeability and Proximity' 'finality of Litigation' 'representative/group Member Claims']

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

Practice and Procedure Application to Reopen Previous Determination of Categories of Persons to Whom Respondents Owed a Duty Not to Cause Pure Economic Loss / Application to Reconsider Liability Determination Before Formal Order Entered and Before All Negligence Claims Resolved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should reopen its previous determination of the categories of persons to whom ICI owed a common law duty of care.' 'Whether Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36; 164 ALR 606 established that the previous determination of proximity and duty of care was erroneous.' 'Whether foreseeability of pure economic loss alone justified imposing a duty of care on claimants in categories (v), (vi) and (vii).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court had discretion to reopen the issue, the liability determination was intended to be final on specified issues and reopening should occur only in a clear case where the earlier decision is incontestably wrong. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd did not compel the conclusion that the earlier categorisation was erroneous, because the High Court still required a connecting link beyond foreseeability in pure economic loss cases. Once the claims moved away from the cattle or meat trail, categories (v), (vi) and (vii) lacked that connecting link. The application to reopen was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application of the applicants to reopen the issue of the categories of persons to whom the respondents owed a common law duty of care be refused.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondents in relation to that application, including the costs connected with the provision of written submissions, but...