Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

[2003] VSC 27

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Pure economic loss
5. › Salient features approach
6. › Gas producer's liability to consumers for interruption of supply
7. › Whether sole gas producer owed duty of care to gas customers to avoid purely economic loss
8. › Whether contractual matrix, statutory regime, vulnerability, and indeterminacy negated duty
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Property damage
5. › Manufacturer's liability
6. › Whether gas producer owed duty of care to business users to avoid property damage from interruption of supply
7. › Analogy with Donoghue v Stevenson
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Pure economic loss
5. › Stood-down workers
6. › Whether gas producer owed duty of care to employees of gas customers stood down due to interruption of supply
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Pure economic loss
5. › Domestic users
6. › Whether gas producer owed duty of care to domestic gas customers for economic loss from interruption of supply

Quick Take

A sole gas producer owes a duty of care to business users to avoid property damage from negligent interruption of supply, but does not owe a duty of care to gas customers (business, domestic, or stood-down workers) to avoid purely economic loss. The contractual matrix between producer, wholesaler, and retailer, the comprehensive statutory regime, and the ability of gas customers to assess and insure against their own losses are salient features negating a duty to avoid purely economic loss. Expert economic evidence on loss allocation theory is of limited utility to courts determining duty of care questions.