Hamid Alizadeh v LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited

2025/00306030

NEGLIGENCE – on 18 April 2006, Dr Hamid Alizadeh (the appellant) bought a new LG side by side refrigerator, model number GR-P197WVS, from Harvey Norman Electrical Auburn – the fridge had been manufactured by LG Electronics Inc. in Korea (LG Korea) and was imported by LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) – the respondent is a sales and marketing subsidiary within the LG group of companies and did not design or manufacture the fridge – on 30 June 2011, the respondent issued a voluntary product safety recall of certain side by side refrigerators – the appellant’s fridge was one of the 24 models listed in the recall notice, but the serial number of their fridge was outside the range of affected numbers and as such, it was not included in the recall – on 11 March 2019, the appellant’s fridge caught fire – the fire caused damage to the appellant’s home and its contents – the appellant had insurance for the home itself, but not its contents – the appellant claimed that the respondent was negligent in failing to identify and include his fridge in the 2011 recall – the primary judge held that whilst the respondent did owe the appellant a duty of care, it did not breach its duty as the respondent did not act unreasonably in accepting the advice from its parent company about which models of refrigerators had a safety defect and needed to be recalled – the primary judge found that the appellant’s choice not to sue the manufacturer LG Korea, the time limit on liability under Australian Consumer Law and the absence of criticism regarding the respondent’s recall conduct (apart from the respondent’s alleged failure to identify the appellant’s particular fridge) meant it was not appropriate to impose responsibility for the harm on the respondent and thus the appellant failed to establish causation – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not breach the duty of care it owed to the appellant – whether the primary judge should have found that the respondent did breach its duty of care – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent’s breach of its duty of care was not a necessary condition of the occurrence of the appellant’s loss and damage – whether the primary judge should have found that causation was established.

Alizadeh v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 271