Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: ADAMS v ALEMITE LUBREQUIT PTY LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 7 Decision date: 15 May 1995
See Attachment (PDF)
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams v Alemite Lubrequit Pty Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1995] NSWCA 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Adams (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against the decision of a District Court judge who had dismissed his claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant alleged that he had suffered injury as a result of a defective product manufactured and supplied by the respondent, Alemite Lubrequip Pty Limited.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant under the law of negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the product in question, a lubrication gun, was defective at the time it left the respondent's control and, if so, whether this defect caused the appellant's injuries. The court also considered the appellant's contribution to his own injury.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not establish that the lubrication gun was defective when it left the respondent's possession. The judge concluded that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving a breach of duty by the respondent. Furthermore, the court found that even if there had been a defect, the appellant's own actions in using the equipment in a manner not intended by the manufacturer contributed significantly to his injury. The principles of negligence, including the requirement to prove a causal link between the breach of duty and the damage suffered, were applied.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court was affirmed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant under the law of negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the product in question, a lubrication gun, was defective at the time it left the respondent's control and, if so, whether this defect caused the appellant's injuries. The court also considered the appellant's contribution to his own injury.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not establish that the lubrication gun was defective when it left the respondent's possession. The judge concluded that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving a breach of duty by the respondent. Furthermore, the court found that even if there had been a defect, the appellant's own actions in using the equipment in a manner not intended by the manufacturer contributed significantly to his injury. The principles of negligence, including the requirement to prove a causal link between the breach of duty and the damage suffered, were applied.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.