WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD -v- BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 196 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 196 (S)
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	20/12/2005
Case No:	FUL:68/2003	Heard:	16 JUNE 2004 & 9 NOVEMBER 2005
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J JENKINS J	Delivered:	27/08/04
Supplementary Delivered:	9/11/05
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Final orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal heard and reasons published Final orders not made No ground to reopen question of res judicata affecting contribution proceedings No ground to further argue question of contributory negligence affecting contribution proceedings Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (No 2) (1997) 190 CLR 207 James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 53 Minister for Education v Klein [2005] WASCA 185 (S) Autodesk Inc v Dyason (1993) 176 CLR 300 Hoad v Nationwide News (1997) 37 IPR 407 Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552 McAdam v Robertson (1999) 73 SASR 360 Nintendo Co Ltd v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd (1994) 181 CLR 134 Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Ltd (1985) 59 AJLR 492 Stambulish v Ekamper [2002] WASCA 212 State Rail Authority of NSW v Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 29 Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672 Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Limited (1997) 72 ALJR 65

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD -v- BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD [2004] WASCA 196 (S) CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

JENKINS J

HEARD : 16 JUNE 2004 & 9 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2004 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 9 NOVEMBER 2005

PUBLISHED : 20 DECEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 68 of 2003 BETWEEN : WOOLWORTHS (WA) PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : FRENCH DCJ

Citation : STONE -v- BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY LTD & ANOR [2003] WADC 94

File No : CIV 2305 of 2000

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal heard and reasons published - Final orders not made - No ground to reopen question of res judicata affecting contribution proceedings - No ground to further argue question of contributory negligence affecting contribution proceedings - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Final orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M L Greenland

Respondent : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : Greenland Brooksby

Respondent : Pynt & Partners

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (No 2) (1997) 190 CLR 207
James Hardie &

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 (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty 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: [2004] WASCA 196 (S)
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths (WA) Pty Ltd, a major Australian supermarket chain, appealed against Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd, a construction company, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute centred around an incident where a customer was injured on Woolworths’ property due to alleged negligence by Berkeley Challenge. The original proceedings involved a claim by the injured party against Woolworths, which subsequently sought contribution from Berkeley Challenge under the Wrongs Act. The court was required to determine whether the appeal could reopen the issue of res judicata concerning the contribution proceedings and whether the question of contributory negligence could be further argued in light of the contribution proceedings.

The court found that there was no ground to reopen the question of res judicata as the matter had already been conclusively decided in the original proceedings. The court also held that the question of contributory negligence could not be further argued in the contribution proceedings as it had not been raised in the original claim against Woolworths. The appeal hinged on whether these issues could be revisited based on the specific facts of the case.

The court concluded that the issues of res judicata and contributory negligence were final and could not be reopened or argued further. The reasoning was that these matters had already been determined in the original proceedings and were not subject to re-litigation in the contribution proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and final orders were made accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Final orders made

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.