MICHELIN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v NTI LIMITED [2010] NSWCA 223

MICHELIN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v NTI LIMITED [2010] NSWCA 223

The evidence before the trial judge did not establish on the balance of probabilities that Michelin Australia was the manufacturer of the tyre; thus, judgment in favour of NTI must be set aside and judgment entered for Michelin Australia.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of District Court set aside, judgment entered for second defendant (Michelin Australia), respondent to pay appellant's costs in Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
['evidence' 'costs' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence']
['civil Law'] ['evidence' 'costs' 'civil Procedure' 'negligence']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Michelin Australia manufactured the tyre and was liable in negligence' 'Whether conclusion as to manufacturer was supported by evidence' 'Whether reopening should be permitted after judgment' 'Appropriate costs orders given offer of compromise and alleged failure to disclose concurrent wrongdoer']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence before the trial judge did not establish on the balance of probabilities that Michelin Australia was the manufacturer of the tyre; thus, judgment in favour of NTI must be set aside and judgment entered for Michelin Australia.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of District Court set aside, judgment entered for second defendant (Michelin Australia), respondent to pay appellant's costs in Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside orders 2 and 3 made in the District Court on 8 October 2009.' 'Give judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs of the trial, except as otherwise provided by orders made on 8 October 2009." "Order that the respondent...