Galea v Farrugia

The appeal concerned a dispute between Galea (appellants) and Farrugia (respondents) regarding an agreement for the supply of land fill. The central issue was whether the appellants had proven that the land fill supplied by the respondents was contaminated with asbestos. The matter was heard by Bathurst CJ, Macfarlan and Ward JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically evidence of deliveries of contaminated land fill by the respondents to two other properties. This evidence was tendered by the respondents to establish a tendency to supply contaminated fill, and the appellants argued it was inadmissible. The court also had to consider whether, even with this evidence, the appellants had discharged their onus of proving that the fill supplied to their property was contaminated with asbestos.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision to admit the tendency evidence, finding it was relevant to the question of whether the respondents supplied contaminated fill to the appellants' property. The court reasoned that the evidence, when considered with other evidence, was capable of establishing that the respondents had a practice of supplying contaminated fill, and that this practice extended to the fill supplied to the appellants. Ultimately, the court found that the appellants had not discharged their onus of proving contamination of the fill supplied to their property.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.