James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd

This case involved an appeal by James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (the appellant) against Seltsam Pty Ltd (the respondent) concerning a claim for contribution under legislation. The dispute arose from a situation where the appellant sought to recover contribution from the respondent in relation to damages awarded to a plaintiff, despite a prior judgment in favour of the respondent in the plaintiff's action against it. The High Court of Australia was required to determine the appellant's entitlement to claim contribution.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent could be considered a party "who would if sued have been liable in respect of the same damage" or a party "against whom contribution may be claimed" within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions, given that the plaintiff's action against the respondent had concluded with a final consent judgment in the respondent's favour. The court also considered the relevance of the finality of this judgment to the appellant's ability to pursue a contribution claim.

The High Court reasoned that the statutory provisions for contribution require the party from whom contribution is sought to either have been adjudged liable or to be a party against whom a claim for contribution can still be made. In this instance, the consent judgment in favour of the respondent was a final order that brought the plaintiff's action against the respondent to an end, thereby absolving the respondent of liability to the plaintiff. The court held that this final judgment meant the respondent did not fit either of the statutory descriptions necessary for the appellant to claim contribution. The appellant's argument that the consent judgment was not a judgment "to judgment" in the required sense was rejected, as the judgment was final and effective in absolving the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed. The court granted liberty to the parties to file written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal.