IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Sydney No S64 of 1998
B e t w e e n -
JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LIMITED
Appellant
and
SELTSAM PTY LIMITED
Respondent
For Judgment
GUMMOW J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 21 DECEMBER 1998, AT 9.31 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
(Reasons for judgment were delivered)
GUMMOW J: Accordingly, the order of the Court is:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2.The respondent has liberty to file, within seven days of the date of this order, written submissions on the making of orders for costs of the appeal to this Court.
3.The appellant has liberty to file, within seven days of the date of the filing of the submissions referred to in paragraph 2 of this order, written submissions in reply on the making of orders for costs of the appeal to this Court.
I publish the Court’s order.
In the light of an application made by the parties by consent for variation of orders 2 and 3 just pronounced, they will be varied so as to provide for the respondent to have liberty to file and serve submissions on the question of costs within 42 days and the appellant to have leave to file and serve submissions on the question of costs within 28 days thereafter.
The orders just pronounced are varied accordingly.
The Court will now adjourn to Monday, 1 February 1999, at 3.15 pm.
AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
- AGLC
- James Hardie & Co v Seltsam Pty Ltd [1998] HCATrans 467
- Case
- [1998] HCATrans 467
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether James Hardie, as the successor company, could be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by Seltsam prior to its acquisition. Specifically, the court had to determine if the corporate veil could be pierced or if there were other legal principles that would attribute Seltsam's pre-acquisition conduct and liabilities to James Hardie. The plaintiffs argued that James Hardie had effectively continued the business of Seltsam and that the acquisition was part of a scheme to shield the business from its existing liabilities.
Gummow J, delivering the judgment, affirmed the general principle that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and that the acquisition of shares in a company does not, of itself, make the acquiring company liable for the pre-existing torts of the acquired company. His Honour rejected the argument that James Hardie should be held vicariously liable for Seltsam's negligence, finding no basis in law to disregard the separate legal personality of Seltsam. The court held that the plaintiffs' claim against James Hardie failed because there was no legal mechanism by which the liability of Seltsam for its pre-acquisition torts could be transferred to James Hardie.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Federal Court. The outcome was that James Hardie was not liable for the asbestos-related diseases contracted by the former employees of Seltsam due to Seltsam's pre-acquisition conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.