Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 66

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

PHILLIP JULIUS BAXTER APPELLANT

AND

OBACELO PTY LTD & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd

[2001] HCA 66

15 November 2001

S10/2001

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

D F Jackson QC with D P Robinson for the appellant (instructed by Baker & McKenzie)

A J Sullivan QC with D T Miller for the respondents (instructed by Moray & Agnew)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd

Torts – Joint tortfeasors – Satisfaction – Settlement with one tortfeasor – Entry of consent judgment against one tortfeasor – Settlement figure less than total damages claimed by the respondents – Whether settlement prevented respondents continuing claim against other tortfeasor – Whether cause of action against joint tortfeasors is one and indivisible – Whether settlement was paid and received in "full satisfaction" of respondents' loss.

Practice and procedure – Rule against "double satisfaction" – Settlement amount in first action less than amount otherwise recoverable in second action – Respondents conceded that credit is to be given for the amount recovered upon settlement of the first action – Whether second action in breach of rule against "double satisfaction" – Nature of the rule against "double satisfaction".

Words and phrases – "full satisfaction" – "double satisfaction" – "action" – "cause of action".

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5(1).

Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 (UK), 6(1).

1. GLEESON CJ AND CALLINAN J. The respondents commenced an action for damages against two alleged joint tortfeasors, one of whom was the appellant. They settled their case against the co-defendant, and entered judgment against him. The amount of the judgment was satisfied. They continued their action against the appellant. The appellant contends that it was not open to them to do so. Whether that contention is correct depends in part upon the meaning and effect of s 5(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) ("the Act"), which was transcribed from s 6(1) of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 (UK) ("the UK Act"), and in part upon principles concerning recovery and satisfaction in the case of claims against persons subject to co-ordinate liabilities. 2. There are many circumstances in which a person with a claim against a number of joint tortfeasors may wish to settle with one, or some, of them, and continue with, or commence, proceedings against others. The situation which arose in the present case is not unusual. 3. Section 5(1) of the Act provides, so far as presently relevant: