FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dowdell v Knispel Fruit Juices Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 851
NEGLIGENCE – breach of statutory duty – responsibility of orange grower and packer to manufacturer of orange juice contaminated by salmonella – foreseeability of type of injury – contract – intention to create legal relations – related companies – sale of goods – implied conditions – fitness for purpose – merchantability – expert evidence – forensic accountants – damages – loss of profits – financial modelling
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 19, 32, 51A
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 74B, 74D, 75AD, 82, 86, 87
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B, s 79
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
Citrus Industry Act 1991 (SA) ss 5, 13, 25, 29, 30, 37
Food Act 1985 (SA) s 25
Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 4
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA) s 14
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA)
Federal Court Rules O 10
Citrus Industry Regulations 1992 r 10, r 14Obacelo Pty Ltd v Taveraft Pty Ltd (1985) 5 FCR 210
Re Wakim; Ex Parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 76 ALR 173
R v Bevan; Ex parte Elias (1942) 66 CLR 452
Flaherty v Girgis (1987) 162 CLR 574
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 100
Minister for the Environment v San Sebastian Pty Ltd (1983) 2 NSWLR 268
Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 191 ALR 449
Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 155 ER 104
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Regal Pearl Pty Ltd v Stewart [2002] NSWCA 291
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1971) 125 CLR 383
Schneider v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 102
Tremain v Pike [1969] 3 All ER 1303
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518
Schneider v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 154
Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 304
Byrnes v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 397
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
Grimsdale & Sons Ltd v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1969] 2 AC 31
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 198 ALR 630
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 657
Pirt Biotechnologies Pty Ltd v Pirtferm Ltd [2001] WASCA 96
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2001) 187 ALR 92
Fleming v Beevers [1994] 1 NZLR 385
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12
Helicopter Sales (Australia) Pty Ltd v Rotor-Work Pty Ltd (1974) 132 CLR 1
South Coast Basalt Pty Ltd v RW Miller and Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 356
Sharrment…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dowdell v Knispel Fruit Juices Pty Ltd 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.
- Case
- [2003] FCA 851
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the first cross-respondent was liable to the first cross-claimant for damages arising from the outbreak. The court held that the first cross-claimant was entitled to recover from the first cross-respondent the amount of $3,182,009.24, which included interest. The court also held that the second and third cross-respondents were liable to the first cross-respondent for damages. The court awarded the first cross-respondent the amount of $3,182,000.24, which included interest. The court further held that the first cross-claimant's claim against the second and third cross-respondents was dismissed.
The court made several orders to reflect its decision. It ordered that judgment be entered for the first cross-claimant against the first cross-respondent for damages to be assessed. It also ordered that the first cross-respondent pay the first cross-claimant the amount of $3,182,009.24 on account of damages to be assessed. The court further ordered that the second and third cross-respondents pay the first cross-respondent the same amount on account of damages to be assessed. The court also ordered that the question of costs be adjourned to a later date for further submissions. Finally, the court extended the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed in relation to this judgment or any part of it to 21 days from the date that judgment is delivered on the question of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
3. There be judgment for the First Cross-Claimant against the First Cross-Respondent for damages to be assessed so as to give effect to the declarations contained in pars 1 and 2 of this judgment.
4. The First Cross-Respondent pay to the First Cross-Claimant the amount of $3,182,009.24 (which sum includes interest of $426,624 to date of judgment) on account of damages to be assessed.
5. The final assessment of the damages to which the First Cross-Claimant is entitled from the First Cross-Respondent do stand adjourned.
6. There be judgment for the First Cross-Respondent against the Second and Third Cross-Respondents for damages to be assessed so as to give effect to the declarations contained in pars 1 and 2 of this judgment.
7. The Second and Third Cross-Respondents pay to the First Cross-Respondent the amount of $3,182,009.24 on account of damages to be assessed.
8. The final assessment of the amount which the First Cross-Respondent is entitled to recover from the Second and Third Cross-Respondents do stand adjourned.
9. In the event that the parties are unable to agree the quantum of the costs and disbursements referred to in par 1.4 hereof, the Registrar to inquire into and report, first on an interim basis, and in due course on a final basis, on the amount of reasonable costs and disbursements incurred by the First Cross-Claimant in defending and settling all personal injury claims brought against the First Cross-Claimant arising out of the outbreak in 1999 of Salmonella Typhimurium Phage Type 135a.
10. The First Cross-Claimant’s claim against the Second and Third Cross-Respondents is dismissed.
11. The question of costs be adjourned to a date to be advised for further submissions
12. Pursuant to O 52 R 15(1)(a)(iii) of the Federal Court Rules, the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed in relation to this judgment or any part of it be extended to 21 days from the date that judgment is delivered on the question of costs.
13. Each of the parties have liberty to apply on short but reasonable notice.
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: SELWAY J
Full text does not contain this section.