Woolworths Ltd v APL Co Pte Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 662

CITATION: Woolworths Ltd v APL Co Pte Ltd [2001] NSWSC 662

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Dvision
Commercial List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50152/99

HEARING DATE(S): 23, 24 and 25 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 August 2001

PARTIES :

Woolworths Ltd (Plaintiff)
APL Co Pte Limited t/as APL Lines (Australia) (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

COUNSEL : Dr AS Bell (Plaintiff)
GJ Nell/E Cox (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Michell Sillar (Plaintiff)
Norton White (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: [NEGLIGENCE] - Australian Customs requirement for defendant to provide notice of arrival of goods and a description of the contents of container - Whether defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in describing contents of container - whether the plaintiff's system contributed to the damage. [TRADE PRACTICES - DAMAGES] - Whether plaintiff relied upon misleading description - Whether damages should be apportioned.

LEGISLATION CITED: Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth)

CASES CITED: Argy & Anor v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Limited & Ors (1990) 26 FCR 112
I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2000) 179 ALR 89

DECISION: See paragraph 81.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

BERGIN J

DATE: TUESDAY 7 AUGUST 2001

50152/1999 - WOOLWORTHS LTD v APL CO PTE LTD t/AS APL LINES (AUSTRALIA)

JUDGMENT

1    In August 1998 a cargo of two containers of frozen cooked black tiger prawns set sail from Sydney on the vessel, the APL Emerald , bound for Thailand. The prawns were being returned by the plaintiff Woolworths Ltd to the original supplier in Bangkok. When the cargo reached Fremantle it was unloaded at Woolworths’ direction and returned to Sydney on the vessel, the APL Ivory , arriving on 11 September 1998. After arrival in Sydney one of the containers of prawns was stored in Woolworths’ agent’s storage depot without refrigeration and the cargo suffered thaw damage.

2    The plaintiff claims that the defendant, APL Co Pte Ltd trading as APL Lines (Australia) (APL), as the carrier of the goods owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide the plaintiff’s agent, Smith Bros Trade and Transport Terminal Pty Ltd (Smith Bros), with sufficient instructions to ensure the prawns were properly cared for after delivery to Smith Bros. It claims that APL breached that duty of care. Woolworths also makes a claim against APL pursuant to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 (Cth) (TPA) . It claims that APL’s inaccurate description of the goods was relied upon by Woolworths’ agent, Smith Bros, and as a result the container was stored without power for refrigeration and the cargo was damaged.
3    This matter was heard on 23, 24 and 25 July 2001. Dr A.S. Bell, of counsel, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr G.J. Nell, of counsel, leading Mr E. Cox, of counsel, appeared for the defendant.

Woolworths & Smith Bros.

4    Smith Bros operates a bonded warehouse and storage facility at Port Botany. From 1994 Smith Bros contracted with Woolworths to pick up its…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolworths Ltd v APL Co Pte 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 662
Decision Date: 7 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Ltd, an Australian retailer, sought damages from APL Co Pte Ltd, a Singaporean shipping company, for losses caused by the destruction of a shipment of goods during transportation. The dispute centred on whether APL owed Woolworths a duty of care in describing the contents of a shipping container, and whether Woolworths' system contributed to the damage. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining these issues.

The court needed to decide if APL had a duty of care towards Woolworths in accurately describing the contents of the container, considering the Australian Customs requirement for the defendant to provide such notice. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Woolworths' reliance on the misleading description contributed to the damage. The case also raised questions about whether damages should be apportioned based on the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The court found that APL owed Woolworths a duty of care in providing an accurate description of the container's contents, given the statutory requirements. The court held that Woolworths' reliance on the description was reasonable, and that the misleading information played a significant role in the damage. However, the court found that Woolworths' internal systems also contributed to the damage, leading to an apportionment of damages. The court determined that APL was liable for 60% of the total damages, with Woolworths bearing the remaining 40%.

The court ordered APL to pay Woolworths the appropriate proportion of the total damages, reflecting the findings of contributory negligence. This decision underscores the importance of accurate communication in international trade and the need for businesses to take responsibility for their role in the supply chain.

Orders