James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd - [2008] NSWCA 76

Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court - 26 August 2008

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWCA 76
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Bell JA at 21; Handley AJA at 2; Barr J at 22

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 14 April 2008

DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, and the second and third respondents have liberty to apply.

CATCHWORDS: TORT - Manufacturer - Statutory Liability for supply of defective goods - Supply - TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer Protection - Liability of Manufacturer for supply of defective goods - Supply

LEGISLATION CITED: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Symes v Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 386
Commonwealth of Australia v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd (1971) 126 CLR 297
Ex parte Turner re Hardy (1947) 48 SR 133
Cook v Pasminco Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 548

TEXTS CITED: Palmer on Bailment

PARTIES: James Spittles (Appellant)
Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Maytag (Australia) Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Austmont Catering Equipment Pty Ltd (Third Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40306/07

COUNSEL: B W Rayment QC/C P Locke (Appellant)
A J McInerney (First Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Velleley & Asssociates (Appellant)
Moroney Lawyers (First Respondent)
DLA Phillips Fox (Second Respondent)
A R Conolly & Company (Third Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 3723/05

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Balla DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 April 2007

CA 40306/07

BELL JA
HANDLEY AJA
BARR JA
14 April 2008

JAMES SPITTLES v MICHAEL’S APPLIANCE SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS

TORT – Manufacturer – Statutory liability for supply of defective goods – Supply

TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer protection – Liability of manufacturer for supply of defective goods – Supply.

HEADNOTE

The appellant injured his hand on razor sharp metal protruding from stainless steel panels on the door of his refrigerator. The refrigerator had been imported but the panels had been fitted by the respondent in Australia. The appellant sued the respondent for damages under s 75AD of the Trade Practices Act which makes a manufacturer who supplies defective goods liable to any person injured by the goods. It was common grounds that the respondent was the manufacturer but the trial judge held that it had not supplied the goods.

On appeal HELD: The respondent had not supplied the refrigerator. It had worked on the goods as a licensee in the premises of another but had never had possession of them and had not delivered them to anyone.

ORDERS

Appeal dismissed. Appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, and the second and third respondents have liberty to apply.

CA 40306/07

BELL JA
HANDLEY AJA
BARR JA
14 April 2008

JAMES SPITTLES v MICHAEL’S APPLIANCE SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS

Judgment

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWCA 76
Decision Date: 14 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Spittles (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision concerning his claim against Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd and two other respondents. The dispute arose from the supply of defective goods, and the appellant sought to establish statutory liability against the manufacturer.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant could establish a claim for damages against the manufacturer under the relevant statutory provisions governing the supply of defective goods. This involved determining the scope of the manufacturer's liability and whether the appellant had satisfied the necessary legal requirements to succeed in his claim.

The Court of Appeal considered the application of the relevant legislation to the facts of the case. The judges analysed the evidence and submissions presented by the parties, applying established principles of statutory interpretation and tort law to determine the extent of the manufacturer's responsibility for the defective goods supplied.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd, with the second and third respondents granted liberty to apply for their costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. Appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, and the second and third respondents have liberty to apply.

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.

CITATION:	James Spittles v Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWCA 76 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	14 April 2008
JUDGMENT OF:	Bell JA at 21; Handley AJA at 2; Barr J at 22
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	14 April 2008
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed. Appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, and the second and third respondents have liberty to apply.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT - Manufacturer - Statutory Liability for supply of defective goods - Supply - TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer Protection - Liability of Manufacturer for supply of defective goods - Supply
LEGISLATION CITED:	Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	Symes v Stewart (1920) 28 CLR 386 Commonwealth of Australia v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd (1971) 126 CLR 297 Ex parte Turner re Hardy (1947) 48 SR 133 Cook v Pasminco Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 548
TEXTS CITED:	Palmer on Bailment
PARTIES:	James Spittles (Appellant) Michael's Appliance Services Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Maytag (Australia) Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Austmont Catering Equipment Pty Ltd (Third Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40306/07
COUNSEL:	B W Rayment QC/C P Locke (Appellant) A J McInerney (First Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Velleley & Asssociates (Appellant) Moroney Lawyers (First Respondent) DLA Phillips Fox (Second Respondent) A R Conolly & Company (Third Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	3723/05
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Balla DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	20 April 2007