LIAM PATRICK JONES v RONALD LLOYD WALKER & CTR PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 405 232) & CONSTRUCTION CONTROL ACT PTY LIMITED (ACN 089 635 218) & TEREEL PTY LIMITED trading as CELTIC PLASTERING COMPANY (ABN 86 008 559 411)
[2008] ACTSC 117 (31 October 2008)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – contribution between tortfeasors – joinder of parties – whether third party may claim contribution from plaintiff – whether existing party can be joined as a subsequent party
NEGLIGENCE – contribution between tortfeasors – whether third party may claim contribution from plaintiff
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Limited (1987) 163 CLR 611
Barisic v Devenport & Ors [1978] 2 NSWLR 111
Donaldson v Canberra Tyre Service Pty Limited [2004] ACTSC 26
Andar Transport Pty Limited v Brambles Limited (2004) 217 CLR 424
Court Procedures Rules 2006, Part 2.5, r 302, 319, 322
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, Part 7.3, ss 21, 102
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Commonwealth), s 66
No. SC 699 of 2004
Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 31 October 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 699 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:LIAM PATRICK JONES
Plaintiff
AND:RONALD WALKER
First Defendant
AND:CTR PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 405 232)
Second Defendant
AND:CONSTRUCTION CONTROL ACT PTY LIMITED (ACN 089 635 218)
Third Defendant
AND:TEREEL PTY LIMITED trading as CELTIC PLASTERING COMPANY (ABN 86 008 559 411)
Third Party
ORDER
Judge: Master Harper
Date: 31 October 2008
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application by the third party to join the plaintiff as a fourth party be dismissed.
This is an application by the third party to join the plaintiff as a fourth party.
The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for personal injury occasioned on 1 March 2001 at a building site at Canberra Airport. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in February 2003 in the Magistrates Court against the first and second defendants. An order was made by a magistrate in May 2004 adding the third defendant as a party.
The plaintiff’s claim is pleaded in amended particulars of claim filed in the Magistrates Court in May 2004. The plaintiff asserts that on the day of his accident he was at the building site as a director and employee of Tereel Pty Limited, now the third party. Tereel was a subcontractor to the third defendant in respect of concrete plastering work. The third defendant was the head building contractor and had possession of the building site. The second defendant was engaged in bricklaying or block-laying work on the site, and the first defendant was an independent contractor delivering sand to the site.
The plaintiff alleges that the third defendant had erected scaffolding, or caused scaffolding to be erected, around a building under construction. The plaintiff was required to mount the scaffolding to attend to his work. The first defendant, Mr Walker, drove a truck into contact with the scaffolding. An unidentified employee of the second defendant was directing…
- AGLC
- Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker and CTR Pacific Pty Limited (ACN 064 405 232) and Construction Control Act Pty Limited (ACN 089 635 218) and Tereel Pty Limited trading as Celtic Plastering Company (ABN 86 [2008] ACTSC 117
- Case
- [2008] ACTSC 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether a third party, in this case a company, could claim contribution from the plaintiff, and if an existing party could be joined as a subsequent party in the proceedings. The court had to consider the statutory framework under the Construction Control Act and the principles of contribution in tort law. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the statutory provisions allowed for such claims and whether procedural rules permitted the addition of parties after the initial claim had been filed.
The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to address these issues. It concluded that the statutory provisions did not permit a third party to claim contribution from a plaintiff directly. The court also found that the procedural rules did not allow for an existing party to be joined as a subsequent party in this context. The application for contribution was therefore dismissed. The court reserved the matter of costs for further discussion between the parties.
The court ordered that the application for contribution be dismissed. The court also noted that it would hear the parties regarding the costs of the proceedings. This outcome underscores the importance of adhering to statutory and procedural requirements when seeking contribution in tort claims.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application will be dismissed. I shall hear the parties as to costs.
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.