Wallaby Grip Limited v State Rail Authority of New South Wales & Ors; James Hardie & Company Pty Limited v State Rail Authority of New South Wales & Ors [2001] NSWCA 105

Wallaby Grip Limited v State Rail Authority of New South Wales & Ors; James Hardie & Company Pty Limited v State Rail Authority of New South Wales & Ors [2001] NSWCA 105

The appellants, Wallaby Grip and James Hardie, would have been liable if sued for the same damage as SRA and Ampol and are thus liable to contribute under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946; the trial judge erred in not treating Ampol as having materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury, and the apportionment should be made accordingly; further evidence regarding employment was properly admitted to correct the record.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal on Cross Claims for Contribution
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; orders in relation to Ampol's cross claims set aside and judgment to be entered for Ampol in the same amounts as in SRA's cross claim; further submissions permitted on quantum, power to make orders, and costs; appeal adjourned for further orders.
Legal Topics
['contribution' 'apportionment of Liability' 'dust Diseases' 'negligence' 'causation' 'appeals' 'admission of Further Evidence']
['tort Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['contribution' 'apportionment of Liability' 'dust Diseases' 'negligence' 'causation' 'appeals' 'admission of Further Evidence']

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal on Cross Claims for Contribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Wallaby Grip and James Hardie & Company Pty Limited were liable to contribute to the respondents for damages paid to the plaintiff under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946' 'Whether Ampol was entitled to recover contribution from the appellants in circumstances where its liability was jointly determined with SRA' 'Whether the trial judge erred in apportionment and calculation of contributions between the respondents and appellants' 'Whether further evidence should be admitted on appeal to clarify the true employer of the plaintiff']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants, Wallaby Grip and James Hardie, would have been liable if sued for the same damage as SRA and Ampol and are thus liable to contribute under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946; the trial judge erred in not treating Ampol as having materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury, and the apportionment should be made accordingly; further evidence regarding employment was properly admitted to correct the record.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; orders in relation to Ampol's cross claims set aside and judgment to be entered for Ampol in the same amounts as in SRA's cross claim; further submissions permitted on quantum, power to make orders, and costs; appeal adjourned for further orders.

Orders

  • ['The appeals succeed to the extent only that the orders made by Curtis J in the actions relating to the cross claims brought by Ampol against James Hardie and Wallaby Grip are set aside.' 'Judgment should be entered for Ampol in the same amounts against James Hardie and Wallaby Grip as entered in the cross claim...