Australia: The year that has been: Proportionate liability in 2013 - key cases and proposed reform

Last Updated: 17 December 2013
Article by Ceri McDonald
Focus: Proportionate liability as a defence to property damage and pure economic loss claims
Services: Dispute Resolution & Litigation, Financial Services, Insurance
Industry Focus: Financial Services, Insurance

Proportionate liability as a defence to property damage and pure economic loss claims continues to be a complex area with high stakes for defendants and the insurance industry. This article takes a look at key developments in 2013 including the push for legislative reform of the area.

High Court's clarification of concurrent wrongdoers

In April 2013, the High Court handed down its decision in Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (2013) 247 CLR 613. At issue was whether solicitors Hunt & Hunt who drafted an ineffective mortgage for Mitchell Morgan caused the same loss or damage as fraudsters who conspired to induce Mitchell Morgan to lend.

The High Court concluded that both the solicitors and fraudsters had caused the same loss: Mitchell Morgan's inability to recoup its money. There was no need for a connection between the actions of the two concurrent wrongdoers such that one caused or contributed to the others' conduct. For a closer look at this decision see our April 2013 article.

Indemnities and contracting out

In Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v CTC Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 58, the New South Wales Court of Appeal decided that a contractual indemnity constituted contracting out of proportionate liability.

CTC had introduced Perpetual to a loan transaction that turned out to be a fraud. In failing to exercise reasonable care in identifying the proposed borrower and his authority to submit the loan application, CTC had breached its obligations of care to Perpetual under a Mortgage Origination Deed (MOD).

CTC maintained that its liability should be reduced by reference to the comparative responsibility of the fraudsters. Perpetual resisted on the basis that, by the indemnity provision of the MOD, the parties had contracted out of proportionate liability (as permitted in New South Wales).

The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that the indemnity had this effect even though its existence pre-dated the proportionate liability regime. It was not necessary for parties to make specific reference to the proportionate liability provisions in order to contract out: "[A]ll that matters is that the contractual indemnity is inconsistent with [proportionate liability]." An interesting (although as yet untested) application of this reasoning would be that such indemnities would not be effective in Queensland where contracting out of proportionate liability is expressly prohibited and possibly not effective in those jurisdictions where the legislation is silent on contracting out.

McFarlan JA went on to deal with other questions regarding the application of proportionate liability to contractual indemnities. His Honour considered that the broad description in proportionate liability legislation of damages as "any form of monetary compensation" was apt to cover a claim for contractual indemnity for loss suffered as a result of a breach of contract.

However, his Honour did not consider that the indemnity claim was within the definition of "apportionable claim" because a failure to exercise reasonable care was not an element of the cause of action. In this regard, McFarlan JA disagreed with the decision of Reinhold v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 187 to the effect that claims could be apportioned where negligence is apparent on the facts but is not an element of the cause of action. Of the other two appeal judges, Meagher JA declined to express a view on this aspect and Barrett JA expressed support for the reasoning in Reinhold.

Proportionate liability unavailable in the FOS process

In Cromwell Property Securities Limited v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited & Ors [2013] VSC 333, the Victorian Supreme Court held that FOS was entitled to determine a referred dispute even though Cromwell was denied the opportunity to raise a proportionate liability defence.

As a term of its financial services licence, to be permitted to provide financial services to retail clients, Cromwell was required to participate in a dispute resolution regime complying with s 912A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth). To satisfy this condition, Cromwell became a member of FOS.

The Radfords were investors in the Cromwell Property Fund and clients of a financial adviser, Garnaut Private Wealth Pty Ltd. They alleged that disclosure documents associated with their investment were misleading and submitted their dispute to FOS, seeking compensation from Cromwell.

Under its Terms of Reference, FOS has discretion to exclude a dispute if there is a more appropriate place, such as a court, to deal with it. Cromwell maintained that the dispute should be excluded; otherwise, Cromwell would be denied, amongst other things, the opportunity to join Garnaut or raise a proportionate liability defence. FOS refused. To challenge this refusal, Cromwell had to establish that FOS' decision was one which no reasonable decisionmaker could reach.

Digby J found the decision of FOS was reasonable, noting in particular that Cromwell had submitted itself to the FOS regime, that there was nothing "unique or exotic" about the Radfords' claim and that Cromwell was not prejudiced to the extent that it could bring a separate claim for contribution against Garnaut extraneous to the FOS determination. Cromwell has appealed.

Forensic challenges and joining alleged concurrent wrongdoers as extra defendants

In August 2013, the Supreme Court of Western Australia set aside third party proceedings by defendants who sought to claim contribution from an alleged concurrent wrongdoer: Fudlovski v JGC Accounting & Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] WASC 301. The defendants, who relied on proportionate liability in defence of the plaintiff's claim nonetheless maintained that their entitlement to pursue statutory contribution subsisted until the entry of judgment against them.

Martin J disagreed, concluding that proportionate liability removes rights of contribution. A similar finding was made in New South Wales in the Sydney Water decision discussed below. The result may well be different in jurisdictions like Queensland where the right of a concurrent wrongdoer to seek contribution in separate proceedings is explicitly preserved.1

Martin J went on, however, to express concern about the "forensic headaches" involved in determining the comparative responsibility of an alleged concurrent wrongdoer who is not a party to the action and who, therefore, may not give evidence or discovery and does not have an opportunity to answer the allegations against them.

His Honour noted also the lack of issue estoppel against the non-party concurrent wrongdoer and, therefore, the prospect of differing findings in subsequent proceedings. To address these concerns, the judge expressed a clear preference that where a defendant alleges that there are concurrent wrongdoers, whom the plaintiff does not join, the defendant should apply to join those persons as extra defendants.

Illustrations of apportionment

The following decisions illustrate apportionment in action in 2013.

Sydney Water v Asset Geotechnical Engineering & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1274 involved a claim by Sydney Water Corporation to recover for substantial damage to a sewer main resulting from a landslip. The sewer main was situated on land owned by the Liddys. They had commissioned the construction of a boatshed, which required the excavation of their land.

The Court found that over-steep excavation had caused the landslip and that the owners, the principal contractor Hyde-Page and Asset Geotechnical Engineering were liable in negligence to Sydney Water. Questions of proportionate liability arose.

The owners had been "casually negligent" in failing to comply with a condition of the council's Construction Certificate that the plans be submitted to Sydney Water. Campbell J made clear that the owners were not otherwise culpable, having been entitled to rely on the geotechnical engineer and principal contractor.

While only engaged for an initial "walk over" assessment, the geotechnical engineer was substantially at fault for misconceiving the subsurface condition, failing to observe the sewer main, recommending batters that were too steep and not recommending a land risk management assessment.

The principal contractor was culpable for failing to ensure that the plans were submitted to Sydney Water and that the geotechnical engineer was recalled for advice once the excavation revealed the true site conditions.

Liability was apportioned 65% to Asset Geotechnical, 25% to Hyde-Page and 10% to the Liddys. Allegations that the council (a non-party) and excavation contractor (a cross-defendant) were also concurrent wrongdoers were rejected as

those parties were found not to have been negligent.

In Seirlis v Bengtson [2013] QSC 240, the plaintiff purchased an apartment in Brisbane's Riparian Plaza in reliance on representations that the apartment had three carpark spaces. In fact, it had two spaces and a storage area with a raised concrete plinth. Other owners used their storage areas as a carpark but this was not permitted under the development approval. Despite this, the apartment had been advertised as having three spaces and at one stage, the individual selling agent undertook to have the plinth removed.

The plaintiff sued the vendors and the sales agents, Hadgelias Holdings Pty Ltd and its independent contractor, Waight. Hadgelias was liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under s52 of the old Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The vendors were also liable under s75B of the TPA as persons knowingly concerned in the corporate agent's misleading conduct: it was the vendors who knew that use of the storage area for parking was unlawful but instructed the agents to advertise three carparks.

The individual agent, Waight, was liable for misleading conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) for his misrepresentation that the plinth would be removed. However, there was no scope for proportionate liability to operate because:

  • The vendors had suggested no fact or circumstance from which it would be appropriate to reduce their liability.
  • Hadgelias' misleading conduct was one and the same as the vendors and did not attract apportionment under s87CD of the TPA.
  • As to Waight, in Queensland, a concurrent wrongdoer who contravenes the misleading conduct provisions of the Fair Trading Act remains severally liable.2

In Bird v Ford [2013] NSWSC 264, the parents of a child expelled from school unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of the school's decision. They then sued the solicitor whom they alleged failed to advise them that they had no case. They failed in that claim too but relevantly, the Court considered whether, had the plaintiffs succeeded, the claim against the solicitor could have been reduced having regard to the comparative responsibility of the barrister he briefed.

Although immune from suit (and, therefore, not liable to the parents or the child), Schmidt J considered that the barrister could have been a concurrent wrongdoer had negligence been established. This is an interesting decision to the extent that immunity from suit would not preclude a party being a concurrent wrongdoer.

In Norcast Sarl v Bradken Ltd (No 2) (2013) 302 ALR 486, the Federal Court found that the respondents had breached the anti-cartel bid rigging provisions, as well as the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) by dealings with Castle Harlan Inc, a US private equity investment firm.

Without disclosing Bradken's involvement, Castle Harlan purchased the applicant's subsidiary (a Canadian mining consumables company and a competitor to Bradken) and promptly on-sold that company to Bradken.

Although not decisive in the outcome, the Court considered a submission that the respondents' liability on the misleading and deceptive case should be significantly reduced having regard to the culpability of Castle Harlan, which the respondents alleged was the "active wrongdoer".

Bradken was found to have engaged in misleading conduct directly by its silence. Bradken and two of its directors were also found liable as persons knowingly concerned in the misleading conduct by Castle Harlan and in that regard (although apparently not in respect of Bradken's direct liability), sought to rely on proportionate liability.

However, the Court found it was just that there be no reduction in liability for Bradken which had "started the [collusive] process" or for the directors who were "the authors of it". This is consistent with Seirlis v Bengtson as to the unavailability of apportionment between parties liable for misleading conduct and those knowingly concerned in the same contraventions. Gordon J's reasons could also be interpreted as suggesting that it may still be just for a party to bear 100% liability even though a non-party is also at fault.

Proposed reforms

Concerns about the clarity of certain provisions and inconsistencies between jurisdictions have plagued the proportionate liability regimes since their inception.

Following reviews by solicitor, Tony Horan, and Professor JLR Davis, draft model legislation was released in 2008 and subject to extensive stakeholder submissions. Following its October 2013 meeting, the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ), released fresh Model Provisions and a Decision Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) about those provisions. The main amendments contemplated in the Model Provisions are:

  1. An "apportionable claim" would be defined in terms of a claim for economic loss or property damage (in contract, in tort, under statute or otherwise) where a failure to take reasonable case is an element of the claimant's action; alternatively, as a claim under the Australian Consumer Law (or predecessor provisions) for misleading or deceptive conduct. The requirement, under the first limb, that the failure to take reasonable case be an element of the claimant's action would remove the arguable application of proportionate liability to breaches of strict contractual duties (s2(2) Model Provisions).
  2. The exemption of consumer claims from proportionate liability would remain (s2(3)(c) Model Provisions).
  3. Any doubt about the ability of arbitrators and other external dispute resolution bodies to make binding decisions without applying proportionate liability would be removed (s3 Model Provisions).
  4. The requirement for a concurrent wrongdoer to be, or to have been, liable to the claimant would be confirmed (s4(1)(b) Model Provisions).
  5. Liability could be apportioned by reference to a concurrent wrongdoer who is not a party to the proceeding (contrast the current position in Victoria), although a defendant would be required to give the claimant, the court and, if possible, the alleged concurrent wrongdoer, information it has about the identity and location of the concurrent wrongdoer and the circumstances which make the defendant believe that person is, or may be, a concurrent wrongdoer (ss6 and 7 Model Provisions).
  6. A defendant would also be required to give a copy of the pleadings alleging proportionate liability to the alleged concurrent wrongdoer. It would also be confirmed that the defendant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case against the concurrent wrongdoer (s8(4) and (5) Model Provisions).
  7. The claimant's ability to bring subsequent proceedings against other concurrent wrongdoers would be preserved; however, the claimant would need leave of the court where the new defendant is someone the claimant was informed about in the earlier proceeding. The claimant would not be entitled to costs in the subsequent proceedings either unless the court is satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for separate proceedings (s10 Model Provisions).
  8. Contracting out of proportionate liability (currently permitted in New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania) would be prohibited, except for arbitrations or external dispute resolution regimes as mentioned and agreements made between concurrent wrongdoers for contribution or indemnity (s12 Model Provisions).

The Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers agreed to consider making such reforms (or some variation of them) but it remains to be seen whether this process will gather greater momentum than has been the case to date.


1s32H Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).
2s32F Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.