Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater v Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd

In the matter of an appeal before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority, trading as Seqwater, sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders made in representative proceedings brought by Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned allegations of negligence arising from flood operations conducted by Seqwater, specifically in relation to the Wivenhoe Dam. The primary judge had made findings on common questions, which Seqwater sought to challenge.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted, and if so, whether the primary judge erred in their findings regarding Seqwater's standard of care, the application of the *Civil Liability Act 2003* (Qld), and the principles of causation and apportionment of liability. Specifically, the court considered the interpretation of Seqwater's Flood Operations Manual, the role of professional judgment in flood mitigation, and whether Seqwater's actions constituted a series of breaches that were jointly sufficient to cause the alleged damage. The court also had to consider issues relating to the apportionment of liability between concurrent wrongdoers and the award of pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal granted Seqwater leave to appeal, finding that the interlocutory orders were final in relation to Seqwater as the representative party, even though the claims of individual group members were not yet finally determined. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside certain orders of the primary judge concerning the answers to common questions relating to Seqwater and its employees. The court reasoned that the primary judge had erred in their construction of the Flood Operations Manual and in their application of the principles of causation and apportionment. The court found that the manual, written for flood engineers, required a purposive construction that acknowledged the dual purposes of water supply and flood mitigation, and that the senior flood operations engineer had a degree of professional judgment in determining strategies. The court also held that the cumulative effect of sequential breaches could be considered a single course of conduct, making the division into discrete breaches artificial.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders relating to the answers to common questions and costs, and remitted outstanding issues regarding costs to the primary judge. The proceedings against Seqwater in the Common Law Division were largely dismissed, subject to the remittal of costs issues. Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.