Clyde Industries Pty Ltd v Golden West Refining Corp Ltd & Anor Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd v Golden West Refining Corp Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 823

Clyde Industries Pty Ltd v Golden West Refining Corp Ltd & Anor Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd v Golden West Refining Corp Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 823

Clyde Industries engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by labelling and supplying hydrochloric acid as technical grade when it contained forty times the expected amount of fluorine, creating a false expectation and causing foreseeable loss to Golden West. Golden West relied on this representation and suffered loss. Daly Laboratories’ misleading conduct was not causative of Golden West’s loss, as Golden West had independent knowledge of typical fluorine content and relied on this, not Daly’s implied representations. Negligence was established against Clyde Industries but not Daly Laboratories, as the latter’s breach of duty was not causative...

Parties
Appellant: Clyde Industries Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Golden West Refining Corporation Limited; Second Respondent: Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd; Appellant: Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Clyde Industries Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Clyde Industries’ appeal dismissed with costs. Daly Laboratories’ appeal allowed with costs (judgment and orders against Daly set aside, application against Daly dismissed). Cross-appeal by Daly Laboratories against Clyde Industries succeeded for indemnity. Appeal by Daly Laboratories against cross-claim dismissed...
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Causation, Duty of Care, Labelling and Product Specifications, Implied Terms and Warranties, Contribution and Indemnity

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clyde Industries Pty Ltd

Appellant

Golden West Refining Corporation Limited

First Respondent

Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Daly Laboratories Pty Ltd

Appellant

Clyde Industries Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the supply of contaminated hydrochloric acid amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Whether representations were made and relied upon as to the acid’s suitability and fluorine content.
  3. 3 Whether the loss suffered was causally connected to the conduct of Daly Laboratories and/or Clyde Industries.

Ratio Decidendi

Clyde Industries engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by labelling and supplying hydrochloric acid as technical grade when it contained forty times the expected amount of fluorine, creating a false expectation and causing foreseeable loss to Golden West. Golden West relied on this representation and suffered loss. Daly Laboratories’ misleading conduct was not causative of Golden West’s loss, as Golden West had independent knowledge of typical fluorine content and relied on this, not Daly’s implied representations. Negligence was established against Clyde Industries but not Daly Laboratories, as the latter’s breach of duty was not causative...

Court Disposition

Clyde Industries’ appeal dismissed with costs. Daly Laboratories’ appeal allowed with costs (judgment and orders against Daly set aside, application against Daly dismissed). Cross-appeal by Daly Laboratories against Clyde Industries succeeded for indemnity. Appeal by Daly Laboratories against cross-claim dismissed...

Orders

  • In Appeal No. WAG25 of 1995, appeal dismissed with costs.
  • In Appeal No. WAG37 of 1995, appeal allowed with costs; judgment against Daly Laboratories set aside and application dismissed against Daly with costs; Daly indemnify Golden West’s costs owed to Clyde Industries; appeal from cross-claim dismissed with costs.