Reported Decision:
(2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-768
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Barry Edward McDonald (t/as B.E. McDonald Transport) v Girkaid Pty Ltd & 4 Ors; Robert Bryce & Co Ltd v Girkaid Pty Ltd & 4 Ors; Hudson Resources Pty Ltd & 5 Ors v Robert Bryce & Co Ltd [2004] NSWCA 297 HEARING DATE(S): 16 June 2003
17 June 2003JUDGMENT DATE:
31 August 2004JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Young CJ in Eq at 240 DECISION: McDonald's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Judgment entered by Adams J on 8 March 2002 on Girkaid and Inghams' claim set aside. (3) Girkaid and Inghams' claim dismissed. (4) Girkaid and Inghams to pay McDonald's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below including such costs as McDonald is ordered to pay to Bryce, Hudson and SLE. Hudson's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Judgments against Hudson set aside. (3) Cross-claims against Hudson dismissed. (4) McDonald to pay Hudson's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below. Bryce's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Orders 4 to 7 inclusive, 12 and 15 of Adams J's orders of 8 March 2002 set aside. (3) McDonald's cross-claim against Bryce dismissed. (4) McDonald to pay Bryce's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below. SLE's cross-appeals: (1) Cross-appeals dismissed. (2) McDonald to pay SLE's costs of the cross-appeals. CATCHWORDS: CAUSATION - whether conclusion of causation open - inference of probable connection - expert evidence of possible cause of fire - absence of scientific theory refuting scientific theory advanced by plaintiffs - sequence of events - APPEAL - evidence - appellate review of trial judge's acceptance of expert witness - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - whether Dangerous Goods Regulation 1978 (NSW) created private cause of action - whether statute imposes a duty to take specific precautions or measures for the safety of others - no private cause of action where statute prescribes the end but not the means - content of statutory duty - whether absolute obligations imposed - what constitutes "practicable steps" or "practicable precautions" - BREACH - foreseeability - DAMAGES - evidence of value. (D) LEGISLATION CITED: Dangerous Goods Act 1975 (NSW) s 4
Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999 s 341(1)
Dangerous Goods Regulation 1978 (NSW) clauses 4, 16, 18, 18(e), 19(e), 19(g), 31, 248, 249(3), Schedule 1
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 30
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52, s 53(a), s 87CASES CITED: Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
Adsett v K & L Steelfounders and Engineers Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 773; [1953] 2 All ER 320
Ahmedi v Ahmedi (1991) 23 NSWLR 288
Astley v Austrust Limited [1999] HCA 6; (1999) 197 CLR 1
Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited (1957) 97 CLR 89
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare (1992) 176…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McDonald v Girkaid 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge's conclusion that McDonald's actions caused the fire was open on the evidence, particularly in light of expert testimony regarding the possible cause of the fire. The court also had to determine whether the *Dangerous Goods Regulation 1978* (NSW) created a private cause of action and, if so, the nature and content of the statutory duty imposed, specifically what constituted "practicable steps" or "practicable precautions" in the context of preventing fires. Furthermore, the court considered the foreseeability of the fire and the evidence presented regarding the value of the damages.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments entered against McDonald and dismissing the claims by Girkaid and Inghams. The court reasoned that the trial judge's acceptance of the expert evidence on causation was not sufficiently supported, and the inference of a probable connection between McDonald's conduct and the fire was not open on the evidence presented. The court found that the *Dangerous Goods Regulation* did not impose absolute obligations and that the evidence did not establish a breach of any duty owed by McDonald. Consequently, the court ordered that McDonald pay the costs of the appeals and the proceedings below.
Orders
Orders of the court
McDonald's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Judgment entered by Adams J on 8 March 2002 on Girkaid and Inghams' claim set aside. (3) Girkaid and Inghams' claim dismissed. (4) Girkaid and Inghams to pay McDonald's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below including such costs as McDonald is ordered to pay to Bryce, Hudson and SLE. Hudson's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Judgments against Hudson set aside. (3) Cross-claims against Hudson dismissed. (4) McDonald to pay Hudson's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below. Bryce's appeal: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Orders 4 to 7 inclusive, 12 and 15 of Adams J's orders of 8 March 2002 set aside. (3) McDonald's cross-claim against Bryce dismissed. (4) McDonald to pay Bryce's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below. SLE's cross-appeals: (1) Cross-appeals dismissed. (2) McDonald to pay SLE's costs of the cross-appeals.
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.