Reported Decision: [2000] 48 NSWLR 522
[2001] Aust Torts Reports 81-601
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] NSWCA 69 revised - 10/04/2000 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40447/99 HEARING DATE(S): 1 December 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2000PARTIES :
Phillip Julius Baxter - Claimant
Obacelo Pty Ltd & Richard Thomas Moon - OpponentsJUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Giles JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :14486/87 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Hulme J
COUNSEL: D P Robinson - Claimant
A J Sullivan QC, D P Miller & M G McHugh - OpponentsSOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie - Claimant
Moray & Agnew - OpponentsCATCHWORDS: JOINT TORTFEASORS - proceedings against both - settlement between plaintiffs and one defendant - judgment entered for settlement sum and settlement sum paid to plaintiffs - plaintiffs continue against other defendant - summary judgment application by the defendant - becomes decision of separate question - whether by force of s 5(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 the plaintiffs could not recover from the defendant more than the judgment sum - no, because the restriction on recovery in the action did not apply where the tortfeasors were sued in the same proceedings - whether satisfaction of the judgment barred further proceedings against the defendant - no, because on facts the judgment for the settlement sum was not in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs' loss - whether settlement and payment of settlement sum barred further proceedings against the defendant - no, because on the facts the settlement sum was not in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs' loss - consideration of rule against double satisfaction and its application to a judgment sum. D CASES CITED: Bryanston Finance Ltd v de Vries (1975) QB 703, explained;
Castellan v Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd (1967) 69 SR 159; D'Angola v Rio Pioneer Gravel Co Pty Ltd (1979) 1 NSWLR 495; XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448; Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 574; and Jameson v Central Electricity Generating Board (1999) 1 All ER 193, considered.DECISION: (1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed; (2) Order that it be separately decided whether the matters of defence in paras 16-22 of the defence filed on 11 June 1998 provide a defence to the opponents' claim against the claimant; (3) Decide the question in the negative; (4) Claimant pay the opponents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEALCA 40447/99
CLD 14486/87
MASON P
SHELLER JA
GILES JAFriday 31 March 2000
BAXTER
v
OBACELO PTY LTD & ANORJUDGMENT1 MASON P: I agree with Giles JA.
2 SHELLER JA: I agree with Giles JA.
3 GILES JA: Master Harrison refused an application for summary dismissal of the…
Continue reading Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 69
- Case
- [2000] NSWCA 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Baxter (the claimant) sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning proceedings brought by Obacelo Pty Ltd (the opponents) against Baxter and another party. The opponents had previously settled with the other defendant for a sum which was paid to them, and judgment was entered for that settlement sum. The opponents then continued their claim against Baxter. Baxter applied for summary judgment, which was treated as a decision on a separate question.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the opponents were barred from recovering more than the settlement sum from Baxter by reason of s 5(1)(b) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* (NSW), whether the satisfaction of the judgment for the settlement sum barred further proceedings against Baxter, and whether the settlement and payment of the settlement sum itself barred further proceedings against Baxter.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that s 5(1)(b) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* did not apply to bar recovery from Baxter because the tortfeasors were sued in the same proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that neither the satisfaction of the judgment for the settlement sum nor the settlement itself barred further proceedings against Baxter, as on the facts, the settlement sum was not in full satisfaction of the opponents' loss. The Court considered the rule against double satisfaction and its application to a judgment sum, concluding that it did not preclude the opponents from pursuing their claim against Baxter for the remaining loss.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the question of whether the matters of defence raised by Baxter provided a defence to the opponents' claim be decided in the negative. Baxter was ordered to pay the opponents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the opponents were barred from recovering more than the settlement sum from Baxter by reason of s 5(1)(b) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* (NSW), whether the satisfaction of the judgment for the settlement sum barred further proceedings against Baxter, and whether the settlement and payment of the settlement sum itself barred further proceedings against Baxter.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that s 5(1)(b) of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* did not apply to bar recovery from Baxter because the tortfeasors were sued in the same proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that neither the satisfaction of the judgment for the settlement sum nor the settlement itself barred further proceedings against Baxter, as on the facts, the settlement sum was not in full satisfaction of the opponents' loss. The Court considered the rule against double satisfaction and its application to a judgment sum, concluding that it did not preclude the opponents from pursuing their claim against Baxter for the remaining loss.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the question of whether the matters of defence raised by Baxter provided a defence to the opponents' claim be decided in the negative. Baxter was ordered to pay the opponents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed; (2) Order that it be separately decided whether the matters of defence in paras 16-22 of the defence filed on 11 June 1998 provide a defence to the opponents' claim against the claimant; (3) Decide the question in the negative; (4) Claimant pay the opponents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
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.