AFS Catering Pty Ltd v Stonehill

Case [2005] NSWCA 183
CITATION:

AFS Catering Pty Ltd v Stonehill [2005] NSWCA 183
HEARING DATE(S):

15 November 2004
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


30 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Giles JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; McColl JA at 3
DECISION:

(1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Judgment of the District Court as to damages set aside. (3) Appellant to pay 80% of the costs of the appeal. (4) The parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order within seven (7) days giving effect to these reasons and, in particular, calculating the amounts awarded in relation to future economic loss, lost superannuation and past and future domestic assistance.
CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - employer and employee - where respondent slipped and was injured at work - duty to devise and provide a safe system of work - reasonable practicable alternate system - DAMAGES - calculation of future economic loss - clasification of the respondent as an "odd lot" - domestic assistance - future out of pocket expenses - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - where injured party's inadvertence leads to injury - LIABILITY - where respondent slipped and was injured at work - whether there was a failure to devise and to provide for a safe system of work - whether risk could be avoided by reasonable practicable measures - non-delegability of employer's common law duty of care - DAMAGES - calculation of future economic loss - significance of primary judge's classification of the respondent as an "odd lot" - calculation of domestic assistance - calculation of future out of pocket expenses - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - where injured party's mere inadvertence leads to injury (D)
LEGISLATION CITED:

Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workers Compensation Act 1998
Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

CASES CITED:

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 78 ALJR 907
Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Krstevski [1973] HCA 42; (1973) 128 CLR 666
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301
Bavcevic v Commonwealth [1957] HCA 67; (1957) 98 CLR 296
Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] 1 KB 1009
Commissioner for Railways (Qld) v Ruprecht [1979] HCA 37; (1979) 142 CLR 563
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 214 ALR 349
Fletcher v Douglas [1934] WCR (NSW) 88
Foster v Wharncliffe Woodmore Colliery Company Ltd [1922] 2 KB 701
Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 42; (1956) 96 CLR 18
Hill v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 832; (2004) 207 ALR 470
Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; (2003) 214 CLR 552
Kolodziejczyk v Grandview Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 267; (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81 - 673
Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306
Neill v New South Wales Fresh…

Details
AGLC
AFS Catering Pty Ltd v Stonehill [2005] NSWCA 183
Case
[2005] NSWCA 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AFS Catering Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the District Court which found it liable for injuries sustained by its employee, Mr Stonehill (the respondent), who slipped and was injured at work. The dispute concerned the appellant's alleged failure to devise and provide a safe system of work, and the assessment of damages awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant had breached its common law duty of care to the respondent by failing to implement a reasonably practicable safe system of work, and whether the risk of injury could have been avoided by reasonable practicable measures. Further issues related to the calculation of damages, including future economic loss, the respondent's classification as an "odd lot" in the labour market, and the assessment of past and future domestic assistance and out-of-pocket expenses. The court also considered the extent to which the respondent's own inadvertence contributed to his injury.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while the employer owed a non-delegable duty of care to provide a safe system of work, the primary judge's assessment of damages, particularly concerning future economic loss and the "odd lot" classification, required reconsideration. The court found that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent was contributorily negligent to a significant degree. The appeal was allowed in part, with the District Court's judgment as to damages being set aside.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant pay 80% of the costs of the appeal and directed the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order within seven days to give effect to the court's reasons, specifically detailing the revised calculations for future economic loss, lost superannuation, and past and future domestic assistance.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Judgment of the District Court as to damages set aside. (3) Appellant to pay 80% of the costs of the appeal. (4) The parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order within seven (7) days giving effect to these reasons and, in particular, calculating the amounts awarded in relation to future economic loss, lost superannuation and past and future domestic assistance.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.