Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v Great Lakes Council

Ryan v Great Lakes Council

Case [1999] FCA 177 5 March 1999

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177
NEGLIGENCE – Representative claim on behalf of consumers of oysters who contracted hepatitis A from contaminated oysters – Growing area management standards and practices – Whether local authority had a duty of care to oyster consumers in respect of the manner of exercise of its statutory powers – Whether breach of duty - Causal connection to hepatitis A epidemic – Whether State government had duty of care to consumers – Breach of duty and causal connection – Whether breach of duty by oyster growers and distributors – Quantum of damages – Apportionment.
TRADE PRACTICES – Proceedings “against manufacturers” of goods – Unsuitable goods – Goods that do not correspond with their description – Goods of unmerchantable quality – Defective goods causing injury – Misleading conduct in the form of an implied representation as to quality – Breach of implied condition of merchantable quality.
Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 52, 71, 74A, 74B, 74C, 74D, 75AA, 75AD and 75AK
GRANT RYAN, SCOTT CALLAGHAN, KEVIN GOWER, DAVID HOLNESS, GEOFFREY BENNETT, BRYAN HOCKING and BROSOW HARDY
v
GREAT LAKES COUNCIL, GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS PTY LTD, CLIFT OYSTERS PTY LTD, M W & E A SCIACCA PTY LTD, TADEVEN PTY LTD, THE OYSTER FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES PTY LTD, R A KING (WHOLESALE) PTY LTD, MANETTAS LIMITED, SHONID PTY LTD T/AS TIM & TERRY OYSTER SUPPLY, VICTORIAN FROZEN FOOD DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD, GEORGES OYSTERS PTY LTD, SMITHS OYSTER SERVICE PTY LTD, STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES and GRAHAM BARCLAY DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
NG183 OF 1997
WILCOX J
SYDNEY
5 MARCH 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 183 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

GRANT RYAN
FIRST APPLICANT

SCOTT CALLAGHAN
SECOND APPLICANT

KEVIN GOWER
THIRD APPLICANT

DAVID HOLNESS
FOURTH APPLICANT

GEOFFREY BENNETT
FIFTH APPLICANT

BRYAN HOCKING
SIXTH APPLICANT

BROSOW HARDY
SEVENTH APPLICANT

AND:

GREAT LAKES COUNCIL
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

CLIFT OYSTERS PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

M W & E A SCIACCA PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

TADEVEN PTY LTD
NINTH RESPONDENT

THE OYSTER FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES PTY LTD
TENTH RESPONDENT

R A KING (WHOLESALE) PTY LTD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

MANETTAS LIMITED
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

SHONID PTY LTD T/AS TIM & TERRY OYSTER SUPPLY
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

VICTORIAN FROZEN FOOD DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

GEORGES OYSTERS PTY LTD
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

SMITHS OYSTER SERVICE PTY LTD
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

GRAHAM BARCLAY DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Judgment be entered in favour of the first applicant, Grant Ryan, in respect of his personal claim, in the sum of $30,000 against each of the following respondents:
.          Great Lakes Council;
.          State of New South Wales;
.          Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd; and
.          Graham Barclay Distributors Pty Ltd;
2.It be declared that the first applicant is entitled to succeed against each of the said respondents, in respect of so much of his representative claim…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ryan v Great Lakes Council

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177
Case: [1999] FCA 177
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan v Great Lakes Council, the plaintiff, Grant Ryan, sued the Great Lakes Council, the State of New South Wales, Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd, and Graham Barclay Distributors Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a hepatitis A outbreak linked to contaminated oysters consumed by members of the public. The plaintiff sought damages both in his personal capacity and on behalf of a class of consumers who contracted hepatitis A from eating the oysters. The court was tasked with determining whether the local council, the State government, and the oyster growers and distributors had a duty of care towards the consumers, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if so, whether the breach caused the hepatitis A outbreak. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the growers and distributors breached provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The court found that the local council had a duty of care towards consumers in its management of the oyster growing area. It ruled that the council breached this duty by failing to properly exercise its statutory powers, which contributed to the contamination of the oysters. Similarly, the court found that the State government also had a duty of care but did not find it breached this duty. The court determined that the oyster growers and distributors were negligent in their handling and distribution of the oysters but did not breach the Trade Practices Act. The court held that the contamination of the oysters and the resulting hepatitis A outbreak were directly caused by the negligence of the council and the growers and distributors.

The court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $30,000 in his personal claim against each of the respondents. It declared that the plaintiff could succeed against the respondents on his representative claim of negligence, but only for those group members who could prove they suffered damage. The court dismissed the plaintiff's representative claim of breaches of the Trade Practices Act, except for claims against Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd, which were reserved for further consideration. The court ordered the respondents to pay the plaintiff's costs and apportioned the burden of the judgment between the respondents. The matter was scheduled for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in favour of the first applicant, Grant Ryan, in respect of his personal claim, in the sum of $30,000 against each of the following respondents:

. Great Lakes Council;

. State of New South Wales;

. Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd; and

. Graham Barclay Distributors Pty Ltd;

2. It be declared that the first applicant is entitled to succeed against each of the said respondents, in respect of so much of his representative claim as alleges negligence, but only on behalf of those group members who prove damage has been suffered by them;

3. The first applicant’s representative claim of breaches by Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd of ss74B and 74D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 be reserved;

4. Otherwise the first applicant’s representative claim of breaches of the Trade Practices Act be dismissed;

5. The said respondents pay to the first applicant his costs of the action incurred to date, whether in relation to his personal or representative claim;

6. The burden of orders (1), (2) and (5) be apportioned between the said respondents as follows:

(a) Great Lakes Council – one third;

(b) State of New South Wales –one third;

and judgment be entered on the cross-claims accordingly;

7. The matter be listed for further directions at 9.30 am on Friday 9 April 1997 or such other time as my Associate may notify the parties.

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.

Actions

Citations

Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177

Most Recent Citation

Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 635

Cases Citing This Decision

Samaan bht Samaan v Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 381
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…ose for which they were sold (namely, to be eaten); nor does the item meet the description of the goods: see, inter alia , Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177; (1999) 102 LEGRA 123.…
Pollard v Wilson [2010] NSWCA 68
Citation 2 (Para 5)

…R 424; [1985] HCA 41; Parramatta City Council v Lutz (1988) 12 NSWLR 293; Pyrenees v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330; [1998] HCA 3; Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177; Makawe Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2009] NSWCA 412). But that was not the present case. The lopping of the jacaranda tree and removal of the pi…
Peterson v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 180
Citation 3

…Council [1999] FCA 177 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424 Thompson v Johnson and Johnson Pty Ltd [1991] 2 VR 449 Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512 Wright v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (1972) 13 KIR 255 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 Date of hearing: 30, 3…
Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 635
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…his is an application by the second and twentieth respondents for an order staying the orders made by me on 5 March 1999 ( Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1999] FCA 177) pending determination of appeals against them. The essential question is whether or not there should be a stay of the judgment of $30,000 in favour…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Ryan v Great Lakes Council [1997] FCA 970
Citation 1 (Para 5)

…was not competent to maintain a representative action against a person in relation to whom he had no personal claim: see Ryan v Great Lakes Council (1997) 78 FCR 309. However, I subsequently gave leave Mr Ryan to amend the proceeding in such a manner as to join additional applicants; each being a person who made a p…
Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 44
Citation 2 (Para 24)

…his does not matter because the situation is covered by the decision in Trident General Insurance Co Limited v McNiece Bros Proprietary Limited (1988) 165 CLR 107. In that case the High Court allowed recovery against an insurer by a contractor to a construction company that took out a public liability insurance polic…
Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v Uim Chemical Services Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 218
Citation 3 (Para 22)

…ualify an otherwise absolute statement or update earlier information: see per Bowen CJ in Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 489–490. As Lockhart J observed in the same case at 504: “It is difficult to conceive how mere silence by an alleged contravener could be sufficie…
Van Gervan v Fenton [1992] HCA 54
Citation 4 (Para 6)

…Mr Ryan also makes a claim for the nursing services provided to him by his wife. In Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 a majority of the High Court held that the true basis of a claim for damages with respect to care and services gratuitously provided to an injured person is the need for those services; it is unn…
[1972] AC 441 [1972] AC 441
Citation 5 (Para 14)

…than “oysters”, and oysters were supplied. There is a difference between description and quality: Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 at 466-467 and 489.…
Barroora Pty Ltd v Provincial Insurance Ltd 581 F Supp 2
Citation 6 (Para 24)

…een applied to permit recovery. See Nitschke v Rossair Pty Ltd (1989) 97 FLR 54 (Jacobs J), Barroora Pty Ltd v Provincial Insurance Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 170 (Brownie J) and SGIC v Giacomelli (1993) 9 SR (WA) 126 (Judge Keall) and compare Cousin v Grant (1991) 103 FLR 236 (Miles CJ). There is no evidence in the present…

Legislation Cited

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) 52, 71, 74A, 74B, 74C, 74D, 75AA, 75AD,...
10 mentions

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 183 OF 1997