Abrahim v Parkview Constructions Pty Limited - [2012] NSWSC 1379

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abrahim v Parkview Constructions Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1379
Hearing dates: 12 to 16 September 2011 & 19 to 23 September 2011
Decision date: 23 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
1. Verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the first and second
defendants as follows:
i. non-economic loss - $347,750.00.
ii. past out of pocket expenses - $196,732.16.
iii. future out of pocket expenses - $336,097.39.
iv. past economic loss - $248,200.00.
v. interest on past economic loss -$21,533.26.
vi. past loss of superannuation -$27,302.00.
vii. future economic loss - $628,830.00.
viii. future loss of superannuation -$69,171.30.
ix. past and future attendant care services - $386,110.57.
x. equipment needs - $20,597.88.
xi. Fox v Wood - $20,506.21
Total - $2,302,830.77
2. The first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
3. Judgment in favour of the third defendant against the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff to pay the third defendant's costs in the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
5. Judgment for the first cross claimant against the first cross defendant on the first cross claim and second cross defendant on the first cross claim.
6. The first and second cross defendants on the first cross claim to pay the first cross claimant's costs as agreed or assessed.
7. Judgment for the second cross defendant on the second cross claim as against the cross claimant on the second cross claim with that cross claimant to pay the second cross defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.
8 Judgment for the second cross defendant to the third cross claim against the cross claim to the third cross claim with that cross claimant to pay the second cross defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: Torts - negligence - duty of care - causation - damages - personal domestic care and assistance - liability of scaffolder and construction company - liability of employer.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48
Ilvariy Pty limited v Sijuk [2011] NSWCA 12
Pacific Steel Constructions Pty Limited v Barahona; Jigsaw Property Group Pty Limited v Barhona [2009] NSWCA 406
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ronnie Abrahim (Plaintiff)
Parkview Constructions Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
Bluestar Painting Solutions Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Representation: B Dooley SC & G Hickey (Plaintiff)
G Guihot (First Defendant)
R A Cavanagh SC & S J Walsh (Second Defendant)
HJ Halligan (Third Defendant)
Drexler & Partners Lawyers (Plaintiff)
A R Conolly & Company (First Defendant)
Sydney Law Group (Second Defendant)
Hicksons Lawyers (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/18002

Judgment

Introduction

Mr Abrahim was employed by Bluestar Painting Solutions Pty Limited as a painter at a residential complex being constructed in Greenwich, New South Wales. On Monday 2 April 2007, shortly after he commenced work on the third level of one of the buildings in the complex, a scaffolding board gave…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abrahim v Parkview Constructions Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Abrahim v Parkview Constructions Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1379
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1379
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abrahim v Parkview Constructions Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr Abrahim, brought an action against Parkview Constructions Pty Limited and one of its employees, Mr Jones, who was a scaffolder, for personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The incident occurred when Mr Abrahim fell from a height while on the premises of a construction site managed by Parkview Constructions. He alleged that the fall was caused by the negligence of Parkview and Mr Jones, who failed to provide adequate safety measures and supervision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Parkview Constructions and Mr Jones owed a duty of care to Mr Abrahim, whether that duty was breached, and if the breach caused the injuries. The court was also required to determine the appropriate quantum of damages for the personal injuries sustained. A secondary issue was the potential liability of Mr Abrahim's employer for any damages awarded, given that Mr Abrahim had received compensation from his employer's workers' compensation insurer.

The court found that Parkview Constructions and Mr Jones owed a duty of care to Mr Abrahim, which was breached by failing to ensure the safety of the construction site. The court held that this breach directly caused Mr Abrahim's injuries. In assessing damages, the court considered the impact of the injuries on Mr Abrahim's ability to provide personal domestic care and assistance, as well as the financial implications of his reduced earning capacity. The court determined that Parkview Constructions and Mr Jones were liable for the full amount of damages awarded to Mr Abrahim. The court also ruled that Mr Abrahim's employer was not liable for any part of the damages, as the workers' compensation insurer had already provided compensation.

Orders