CSR Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd

Case [2007] NSWCA 107

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:      CSR Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2007]  NSWCA 107

FILE NUMBER(S):
40126/06

HEARING DATE(S):               22/03/07

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 May 2007

PARTIES:
CSR Limited (Appellant)
Amaca Pty Limited (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:       Mason P Hodgson JA Young CJ in Eq   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):          DDT 81/05

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Curtis J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:    23/02/06

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
(Re Doughan);  Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 4

COUNSEL:
F Corsaro SC (Appellant)
D J Russell SC and J V Gooley (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Makinson & d'Apice (Appellant)
Holman Webb (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
PARTNERSHIP- Contribution- One partner settled claim of plaintiff and cross-sued for contribution from other partner- Whether partnership agreement precluded contribution- Held- "No"- Whether paying partner entitled to equal contribution to own costs in defending plaintiff's claim- Held a co-surety or co-tortfeasor may claim contribution for costs reasonably incurred in defending claim.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989, ss 10, 11, 12, 32
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, s 5(1)(c)
Partnership Act 1892, ss 10, 12

CASES CITED:
Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1969) 121 CLR 342
Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd (2001) 51 NSWLR 476
Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2001] NSWSC 324
Bartels v Behm (1990) 19 NSWLR 257
Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Ltd v Commissioner for Government Transport (1955) 92 CLR 200
Broom v Hall (1859) 7 CB (NS) 503; 141 ER 911
Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 282
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Wyong Shire Council (2000) 48 NSWLR 679
Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd v Wawn (1995) 17 ACSR 741
Morgan Equipment Company v Rodgers (No 2) (1993) 32 NSWLR 467
Re Linsley [1904] 2 Ch 785
Roach v Thompson (1830) M & M 486; 173 ER 1233
The Millwall [1905] P 155
Wallaby Grip (BAE) Pty Ltd v Eraring Enery (2004) 60 NSWLR 701

DECISION:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA   40126/06
DDT 81/2005

MASON P
HODGSON JA
YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 8 May 2007

CSR LIMITED v AMACA PTY LIMITED

Judgment

  1. MASON P:          I agree with Young CJ in Eq, save that I reserve my position as to his comment at [20] (cf Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1969) 121 CLR 342 at 350).

  2. HODGSON JA:   I agree with Young CJ in Eq.

  3. YOUNG CJ in EQ:  This is an appeal as of right from a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW in which the present appellant was ordered to pay one-half of the verdict and judgment that the respondent suffered in an action brought in the Dust Diseases Tribunal by a Mr Doughan, 50% of the respondent's costs of resisting that claim plus…

Continue reading CSR Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
CSR Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 107
Case
[2007] NSWCA 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Ltd (CSR) and Amaca Pty Ltd (Amaca) were parties to litigation concerning a claim for contribution. CSR had settled a plaintiff's claim and subsequently cross-sued Amaca for contribution. The primary dispute revolved around whether a partnership agreement between CSR and Amaca precluded CSR from seeking contribution from Amaca. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Mason P, Hodgson JA, and Young CJ in Eq.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the terms of the partnership agreement between CSR and Amaca operated to exclude CSR's right to claim contribution from Amaca. Secondly, the court was required to consider whether CSR, as the paying partner, was entitled to claim an equal contribution from Amaca for its own costs incurred in defending the plaintiff's claim.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the partnership agreement did not preclude CSR from seeking contribution. The court applied the principle that a co-surety or co-tortfeasor may claim contribution for costs that were reasonably incurred in defending a claim. This principle was applied to the circumstances of the case, leading to the conclusion that CSR was entitled to seek contribution for its defence costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal ordered that CSR pay Amaca's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with 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

YOUNG CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: YOUNG CJ

Full text does not contain this section.