Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd, alongside two other groups of plaintiffs, filed a class action against Esso Australia Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs sought damages due to the negligent interruption of gas supply caused by Esso, which resulted in a prolonged stoppage affecting approximately 1.4 million gas customers and others. The groups represented different categories of affected parties: industrial and business users, domestic users, and workers who were stood down by their employers.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether Esso owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to avoid purely economic loss, the principles to be considered in determining such a duty, and the extent to which economic evidence was relevant. The court also needed to consider whether Esso owed a duty of care to avoid property damage and the appropriate approach to proving causation and damages in the context of the economic loss claimed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that Esso owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to avoid economic loss caused by its negligence, even if the loss was purely economic. The court found that the salient features of the case, including the nature of the relationship between Esso and the plaintiffs, the foreseeability of the harm, and the nature of the harm itself, supported the imposition of such a duty. The court also considered that Esso owed a duty of care to avoid property damage resulting from the gas supply interruption. Regarding the relevance of economic evidence, the court found that it was necessary to prove the causation of the economic loss and to quantify the damages. The court ultimately determined that Esso was liable for the economic losses suffered by the plaintiffs due to the gas supply interruption.

The final orders of the court included the determination of liability on the part of Esso for the economic losses suffered by the plaintiffs, as well as directions for further proceedings to assess the extent of those losses and the appropriate quantum of damages. The court also ruled that Esso had a duty to avoid property damage and directed the parties to further proceedings to address this aspect of the claim.