FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cook v Pasminco Ltd [2000] FCA 677
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction of Federal Court – claims of negligence and nuisance arising out of emission of allegedly noxious fumes which allegedly injured health of applicants – accrued jurisdiction – claims under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 75AD and 75AG that the emissions were “goods” “manufactured” by respondents and “supplied” by them “in trade or commerce” and that had a “defect”.
WORDS AND PHRASES – “goods” – “manufactured” – “in trade or commerce” – “supply” – “defect”.
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 75 AC, 75AD, 75AG
ReWakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 163 ALR 270, cited
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457, applied
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212, applied
Fitzroy Motors Pty Ltd v Hyundai Automotive Distributors Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 445, followed
WG & B Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Tesla Farad Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1776, followed
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594, appliedROSLYN GAY COOK & ORS v PASMINCO LIMITED & ORS
N 132 OF 2000
LINDGREN J
12 MAY 2000
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 132 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
ROSLYN GAY COOK
First ApplicantSAMANTHA JOY COOK (by her next friend ROSLYN GAY COOK)
Second ApplicantVICKI LEAH BLAD
Third ApplicantASHLEIGH AGARS (by his next friend VICKI LEAH BLAD)
Fourth ApplicantAND:
PASMINCO LIMITED
First RespondentPASMINCO COCKLE CREEK SMELTER PTY LIMITED
Second RespondentPASMINCO PORT PIRIE SMELTER PTY LIMITED
Third RespondentJUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed as incompetent.
2.The proceeding be stood over to a date to be fixed for the hearing of submissions on costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 132 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
ROSLYN GAY COOK
First ApplicantSAMANTHA JOY COOK (by her next friend ROSLYN GAY COOK)
Second ApplicantVICKI LEAH BLAD
Third ApplicantASHLEIGH AGARS (by his next friend VICKI LEAH BLAD)
Fourth ApplicantAND:
PASMINCO LIMITED
First RespondentPASMINCO COCKLE CREEK SMELTER PTY LIMITED
Second RespondentPASMINCO PORT PIRIE SMELTER PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
12 MAY 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(ex tempore)
The applicants sue the respondents arising out of alleged noxious emissions from their plants at Cockle Creek, near Newcastle, New South Wales, and Port Pirie in South Australia. All four applicants allege injury to their health. There is also a case made based on noise and vibrations but this is not of immediate concern.
The first applicant and her daughter, the second applicant, who is seven years old, live at Cockle Creek. The first applicant bought a house…
Continue reading Cook v Pasminco Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cook v Pasminco Ltd [2000] FCA 677
- Case
- [2000] FCA 677
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered whether Cook's application for special leave to appeal was incompetent due to procedural errors and whether it was appropriate to stand over the proceeding to hear submissions on costs. The Court held that the application was indeed incompetent due to procedural deficiencies and, as such, it was dismissed. Given the dismissal, the Court decided to stand over the proceeding to a later date for the purpose of hearing submissions on costs.
The Court's decision was grounded in the procedural requirements for special leave to appeal, emphasizing that Cook's application did not meet the necessary standards. The Court's dismissal of the application and the standing over of the proceeding for costs submissions reflect a focus on procedural compliance and the efficient use of court resources. The final orders reflect these considerations, dismissing the application and scheduling a future date for the consideration of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed as incompetent.
2. The proceeding be stood over to a date to be fixed for the hearing of submissions on costs.
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
Established by: LINDGREN J
Full text does not contain this section.