Prentice & Carmody as trustees for the Carmprent Unit Trust v AGL Sales Pty Ltd

In Prentice & Carmody as trustees for the Carmprent Unit Trust v AGL Sales Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought damages against AGL Sales Pty Ltd (the second defendant) under section 74B of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as well as against two other defendants (the third and fourth) for negligence. The second defendant sought to claim contribution from the third and fourth defendants. The third and fourth defendants applied to strike out the notices of contribution issued by the second defendant. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the action available under section 74B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is a tort. The court also needed to determine if the second defendant was a tortfeasor, and whether section 6 of the Law Reform Act 1995 applied to the plaintiffs' claim. Additionally, the court had to decide if the “damage” suffered by the plaintiffs arising out of the application of section 74B was of a different character to that available against the third and fourth defendants.

The court found that the action under section 74B was not a tort but rather a statutory remedy. The second defendant, having been found liable under the statutory provision, was not a tortfeasor. Consequently, the court concluded that section 6 of the Law Reform Act 1995 did not apply to the plaintiffs' claim. Given that the statutory remedy and the common law negligence claims were distinct, the "damage" suffered by the plaintiffs was of a different character. As a result, the court struck out the notices of contribution issued by the second defendant against the third and fourth defendants.