LA ROSA -v- NUDRILL PTY LTD [2013] WASCA 18
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 18 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:150/2011 | 3 SEPTEMBER 2012 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MURPHY JA | 1/02/13 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GIUSEPPE LA ROSA NUDRILL PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Contract Carriage of drill rig Drill rig damaged in transit Exclusion clause endorsed on back of invoices Whether exclusion clause incorporated into contract by prior course of dealings Whether knowledge of term may be actual or constructive Meaning of 'contractual document' Whether document containing the term must be sent or given prior to, or at the time of, formation of each of the contracts (or one or more of them) constituting the prior course of dealings Whether the term must be incorporated in at least one of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings Whether reasonably open on the evidence for trial judge to find appellant breached his contractual and tortious duties to exercise reasonable care Whether appellant failed to discharge onus of disproving negligence in bailment Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Brambles Holdings Ltd v WMC Engineering Services Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 990096, 4 March 1999) Chattis Nominees Pty Ltd v Norman Ross Homeworks Pty Ltd (receiver appointed) (in liq) (1992) 28 NSWLR 338 Circle Freight International Ltd v Medeast Gulf Exports Ltd [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 427 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 DJ Hill & Co Pty Ltd v Walter H Wright Pty Ltd [1971] VR 749 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1966] 1 WLR 287 Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Motorline Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 375 Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31 Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB 71 MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 CLR 125 McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125 Moratic Pty Ltd v Gordon [2007] NSWSC 5; (2007) 13 BPR 24,713 Nudrill Pty Ltd v La Rosa [2010] WASCA 158 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay [1988] HCA 32; (1988) 165 CLR 197 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451 Pondcil Pty Ltd v Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1206; (1994) ATPR (Digest) 46-134 Remath Investments No 6 Pty Ltd v Chanel (Australia) Pty Ltd [1992] NSWCA 208 Rinaldi & Patroni Pty Ltd v Precision Mouldings Pty Ltd [1986] WAR 131 Ronstan International Pty Ltd v Thomson [2002] VSCA 75 Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 Taylor v R Singleton (Traders) Pty Ltd (1995) 182 LSJS 112 The Proprietors of Strata Plan 30102 v Energy Australia [1997] NSWCA 251 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd… |
Continue reading La Rosa v Nudrill Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- LA ROSA -v- NUDRILL PTY LTD [2013] WASCA 18
- Case
- [2013] WASCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
La Rosa v Nudrill Pty Ltd was a case in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff sought damages for the loss of a drill rig transported by the defendant. The dispute centred on whether an exclusion clause printed on the reverse of invoices was incorporated into the contracts between the parties through a course of prior dealings. The defendants argued that the exclusion clause exempted them from liability for negligence in the carriage of the drill rig.
The legal issues before the court included whether the exclusion clause was incorporated into the contracts by the prior course of dealings, whether the knowledge of the term could be actual or constructive, and if the document containing the term had to be sent or given prior to or at the time of the formation of each of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings. Additionally, the court had to determine if the term needed to be incorporated in at least one of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings and if it was reasonably open on the evidence for the trial judge to find the appellant breached his contractual and tortious duties to exercise reasonable care.
The court found that the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contracts by the prior course of dealings. It reasoned that the term had to be incorporated in at least one of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings, and it was not reasonably open on the evidence for the trial judge to find the appellant breached his duties. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of disproving negligence in bailment. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's findings were upheld.
The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the trial judge's findings stand.
The legal issues before the court included whether the exclusion clause was incorporated into the contracts by the prior course of dealings, whether the knowledge of the term could be actual or constructive, and if the document containing the term had to be sent or given prior to or at the time of the formation of each of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings. Additionally, the court had to determine if the term needed to be incorporated in at least one of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings and if it was reasonably open on the evidence for the trial judge to find the appellant breached his contractual and tortious duties to exercise reasonable care.
The court found that the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contracts by the prior course of dealings. It reasoned that the term had to be incorporated in at least one of the contracts constituting the prior course of dealings, and it was not reasonably open on the evidence for the trial judge to find the appellant breached his duties. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of disproving negligence in bailment. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's findings were upheld.
The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the trial judge's findings stand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.