GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd v. Mobbs & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC (11 March 2011)

A defendant has the onus of proving that its liability should be limited under part 2 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA), to avoid having to pay 100% of the damages.

The plaintiff claimed its cotton crop had been damaged by the drift of herbicides resulting from the aerial spraying of neighbouring properties. The plaintiff sued eight defendants including the neighbouring owners, the aerial spraying operator, its pilot and the company supplying the herbicides.

Before trial, the plaintiff settled its claim with all defendants except the aerial spraying operator and the pilot. At trial, the court found the aerial spraying operator and the pilot negligent: having sprayed the chemicals in incorrect ratios and mixes and in inappropriate weather conditions. Damages in the sum of $467,187.45 were awarded.

A further hearing was held to determine first, if the liability for those damages could be reduced by the settlement sum previously received by the plaintiff and second, if the liability for damages could be apportioned between all defendants, including the defendants who had earlier settled with the plaintiff.

With respect to the first point, the court found that the earlier settlement was not a "judgment" against a concurrent wrongdoer within the meaning of section 32B of the CLA and was therefore not relevant to any apportionment question.

With respect to the second point, the court found that the onus was on the defendants who were attempting to limit their liability (the aerial spraying operator and the pilot) to establish that the proceedings were an "apportionable claim" under section 28 of the CLA and that the other defendants were "concurrent wrongdoers" under section 30.

The court agreed the claim was apportionable as it involved economic loss suffered as a result of damage to property caused by a breach of duty of care.

In determining if other parties are concurrent wrongdoers, it is necessary to determine what was "just" (and therefore "equitable") in terms of what burden each party should bear for the full loss. For example:

  • Which of the wrongdoers was more actively engaged in the activity causing loss?
  • Which of the wrongdoers was more able to effectively prevent the loss happening?

In the instant case, the other defendants who settled with the plaintiff were not concurrent wrongdoers as there was no evidence led at trial and no findings were made to establish that the acts or omissions of those other defendants had caused the plaintiff's loss and damage.

Implications

Negligent defendants pursued by a plaintiff must prove that the claim is one in which liability can be shared and that the court has made findings that the other parties have contributed to and caused the same loss to the plaintiff before they can limit their liability and argue what proportion of the loss they justly deserve to bear.

Cooper Grace Ward was named Best Australian Law Firm in the BRW Client Choice Awards 2010 - Revenue < $50m. Joint Best Australian Law Firm in the BRW Client Choice Awards 2009 - Revenue < $50m.
The firm has also been named as the fastest growing law firm in Australia for 2009 by The Australian.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.