Docker v Achievement Concepts P/L & Redken [1999] NSWSC 248

Docker v Achievement Concepts P/L & Redken [1999] NSWSC 248

Redken is not entitled to complete indemnity from Achievement Concepts as the alleged implied term should not be read into the contract, and even if it were, both parties' lack of care were anterior causes of the plaintiff's loss. Indemnity is awarded only where the other party's breach was the sole or primary cause; here, responsibility was concurrent and apportioned.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Cross Claim
Outcome
Cross claim based on contract dismissed
Legal Topics
['joint Tortfeasors' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'indemnity']
['tort Law' 'contract Law'] ['joint Tortfeasors' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a term should be implied in the contract between employer and contractor creating a duty of care by the contractor to the employee' 'If such an implied term exists, whether its breach entitles the employer to complete indemnity from the contractor']

Ratio Decidendi

Redken is not entitled to complete indemnity from Achievement Concepts as the alleged implied term should not be read into the contract, and even if it were, both parties' lack of care were anterior causes of the plaintiff's loss. Indemnity is awarded only where the other party's breach was the sole or primary cause; here, responsibility was concurrent and apportioned.

Court Disposition

Cross claim based on contract dismissed

Orders

  • []