Rideout v Glaxo Group Ltd

The plaintiff, Wanda Berenice Rideout, commenced proceedings against several defendants, including Glaxo Group Limited, Glaxo Laboratories Limited, and Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd, alleging personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendants in relation to the manufacture and distribution of isophendylate, a substance used in radiological procedures. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of the service of the writ on them, arguing that the plaintiff could not demonstrate any association with the product or a causal relationship between the product and her injuries. The defendants also claimed that the writ should not have been renewed and that there was no notice of intention to proceed under O.90 r.9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court before the service of the writ.

The court found that the onus of proof in such applications lies on the defendants, and the plaintiff needed only to demonstrate the existence of evidence supporting a prima facie case, not necessarily direct evidence proving the case. The court also found that the renewal of the writ was justified and that the service of the writ did not require a notice of intention to proceed under O.90 r.9. The court set aside the service of the writ on the first defendant but dismissed the applications of the other defendants.