Legal Research
Cases
Laws v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd

Laws v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 4 June 2007 83 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision:
209 FLR 53

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Laws v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd & 2 Ors; Laws v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 316

HEARING DATE(S): 01/05/2006-05/05/2006; 08/05/2006-12/05/2006; 15/05/2006-19/05/2006; 22/05/2006-25/05/2006; 27/06/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 June 2007

JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION:
The Court proposes the following orders:
A. In 20084/2002, Thomas John Laws (Laws Senior):
(i) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the amount of $272,433.79; (ii) Each of the first and second defendants contribute 50% of the judgment sum; (iii) The first and second defendants pay the costs of the plaintiff of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed; and (iv) Pursuant to Rule 36.4(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), this judgment comes into effect on and from 1 June 2007 and interest pursuant to s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) accrues from that date.
B. In 20076/2002, John Rodney Laws (Laws Junior):
(i) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the amount of $9,146,462.05; (ii) Each of the first and second defendants shall contribute 50% of the judgment sum; (iii) The first and second defendants shall pay the costs of the plaintiff of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed; (iv) Otherwise, the proceedings, including the cross-claim be dismissed; and (v) Pursuant to Rule 36.4(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), this judgment comes into effect on 1 June 2007 and interest pursuant to section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) accrues from that date.
The Court makes the following orders:
(i) Both matters stand over until 9.30am on 14 June 2007; (ii) Leave is given for each plaintiff to inform the Court of the election as to damages in negligence and for that purpose to notify the Associate to Justice Rothman and each other party of the election by close of business 12 June 2007; (iii) Leave is granted to all parties to notify and serve any alleged miscalculation in the reasons for judgment by that date and for any special or different basis for the order for costs; and (iv) The parties are directed to confer and the plaintiffs shall file a formal minute of the orders arising from these reasons for judgment.

CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – vendor and purchaser – actual knowledge of dangers – reason to know – vendor liable – importer/wholesaler liable – warning required – reasonable response – causation.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT – meaning of consumer – used up in process of repair – tractor tyre not ordinarily acquired for domestic purpose – consumer except for purposes of Part V Division 2A.
DAMAGES – election between damage under negligence and Trade Practices Act – future care principles – 24-hour care required.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

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 Laws v GWS Machinery 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: [2007] NSWSC 316
Decision Date: 4 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laws brought a claim against GWS Machinery Pty Ltd for negligence in relation to injuries he suffered when using a piece of machinery. The machinery was purchased by Laws from GWS Machinery, an importer and wholesaler of machinery. Laws alleged that the machinery was defective and that GWS Machinery failed to warn him of known risks associated with its use. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central issue was whether GWS Machinery owed a duty of care to Laws in respect of the defective machinery and whether this duty included a requirement to warn Laws of the known risks. It was also necessary to determine whether GWS Machinery's failure to warn constituted a breach of this duty and whether such breach caused Laws' injuries. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether GWS Machinery's actual knowledge of the dangers associated with the machinery meant they were liable for not warning Laws.

The court found that GWS Machinery did owe a duty of care to Laws, which included an obligation to warn him of known risks. The court held that GWS Machinery had actual knowledge of the risks associated with the machinery and that they had reason to know these risks were not apparent to the ordinary user. The failure to warn Laws of these risks constituted a breach of the duty of care. The court determined that this breach was a cause of Laws' injuries and thus GWS Machinery was liable for negligence. The court also held that GWS Machinery was liable for failing to warn Laws of the known risks, even if Laws had actual knowledge of the dangers.

The Supreme Court ordered GWS Machinery to pay Laws damages for his injuries and costs associated with the proceeding. The court further found that GWS Machinery's liability extended to compensating Laws for the failure to warn, as this was a breach of their duty of care. The court did not find it necessary to apportion liability between GWS Machinery and any other party involved in the supply chain.

Orders