J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 484

J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 484

The release by the applicant of the first respondent, properly construed as a release and not merely a covenant not to sue, extinguished the indivisible cause of action against both the first and second respondents, so the claim against the second respondent must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Limited; First Respondent: Blowers and Lowe Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Corobimilla Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Settlement With First Respondent and Resolution of Claim Against Second Respondent
Outcome
Claim against the second respondent dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Vicarious Liability, Joint Liability, Release of Joint Tortfeasors
Trade Practices Torts Contract Misrepresentation Vicarious Liability Joint Liability Release of Joint Tortfeasors

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.F. & B.E. Palmer Pty Limited

Applicant

Blowers and Lowe Pty Limited

First Respondent

Corobimilla Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Settlement With First Respondent and Resolution of Claim Against Second Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether release of the first respondent (agent) by the applicant also releases the second respondent (principal) from joint liability under the Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Whether the liability between principal and agent in this context is joint or several

Ratio Decidendi

The release by the applicant of the first respondent, properly construed as a release and not merely a covenant not to sue, extinguished the indivisible cause of action against both the first and second respondents, so the claim against the second respondent must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against the second respondent dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Claim against the second respondent dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.