SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hamcor Pty Ltd & Anor v State of Qld & Ors [2014] QSC 224
PARTIES:
HAMCOR PTY LTD (ACN 010 141 429)
(first plaintiff)
and
DONALD CHARLES HAYWARD and JAMES PETER COLLINS, as executors of the Estate of TERRENCE ARTHUR ARMSTRONG (deceased)
(second plaintiff)
v
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(first defendant)
and
MARSH PTY LTD (ABN 86 004 651 512)
(second defendant)
and
OTAGO PTY LTD (ABN 90 010 161 501)
(third defendant)FILE NO/S:
5764 of 2011
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
1 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 October-30 October 2013; 6 November-8 November 2013; 21 May 2014; last written submission received 19 June 2014
JUDGE:
Dalton J
ORDER:
Judgment for the first, second and third defendants against the first and second plaintiffs
CATCHWORDS:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s12ED(1)(a)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s9(2)(d), s36
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 912A(1)(a)
Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), s391Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (Qld), s8B, s53, s129
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Board of Fire Commissioners (NSW) v Ardouin (1961) 109 CLR 105
BP plc v AON Ltd [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 789
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Burnett v Grampian Fire and Rescue Service [2007] S.L.T. 61
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1975-1976) 136 CLR 529
Capital and Counties PLC v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004
Colbran v State of Queensland [2007] 2 Qd R 235
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180
Punjab National Bank v de Boinville [1992] 3 All ER 104
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Ltd (2009) 77 NSWLR 360
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923
Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra (2009) 237 CLR 215
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424
Sydney Water Corporation v Turano (2009) 239 CLR 51
Williams v Hutt Valley and Bays Fire Board [1967] NZLR 123Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – IN GENERAL – – where the first defendant operates a fire brigade – where the brigade owed duties to the public at large – where the brigade may owe duties to other persons – whether a fire brigade owes a duty to take care in fighting a fire – whether the potential for conflicting duties affects the brigade’s duty of care to the plaintiffs – whether a duty of care would be inconsistent with the brigade’s statutory functions
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – WHERE ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL LOSS – where the plaintiffs…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hamcor Pty Ltd v State of Qld 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
- [2014] QSC 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the fire brigade owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, considering the nature of the brigade's statutory functions and the potential for conflicting duties. It found that the brigade owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, given the officers' expertise and the plaintiffs' vulnerability. The court also considered the foreseeability of the plaintiffs' economic loss, the proximity of the relationship between the parties, and the standard of care in emergency situations. It determined that the fire brigade breached its duty of care by using water in a manner that caused contamination, despite understanding the environmental risks. The court rejected the argument that statutory provisions modified the standard of care or provided immunity to the fire brigade. It also concluded that causation and contributory negligence were not established in the plaintiffs' favour.
The court's reasoning led to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and the allowance of the first, second, and third defendants' cross-appeals. The court found that the fire brigade did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs, given the statutory framework and the nature of the plaintiffs' loss. It held that the plaintiffs' economic loss was not reasonably foreseeable, and there was no sufficient proximity between the parties. The court also found that the fire brigade did not breach its duty of care, as it acted within its statutory powers and the circumstances of the emergency. Additionally, the court held that statutory provisions did not modify the standard of care or provide immunity to the fire brigade. It also concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to take preventative measures did not contribute to the loss sustained. Finally, the court held that the broker did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs regarding insurance coverage.
The court's final orders were that judgment be entered for the first, second, and third defendants against the first and second plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, and the first, second, and third defendants' cross-appeals were allowed. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the first, second and third defendants against the first and second plaintiffs
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.