Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: ALCAN AUSTRALIA LTD v JORDAN [1995] NSWCA 12 Decision date: 21 June 1995
See Attachment (PDF)
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Alcan Australia Ltd v Jordan and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1995] NSWCA 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Alcan Australia Ltd v Jordan*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Alcan Australia Ltd (the employer) against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the employer's liability for injuries sustained by Mr Jordan (the employee) during the course of his employment.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the employer had breached its duty of care to the employee by failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically in relation to the handling and storage of aluminium ingots. The court also had to determine whether the employee had been contributorily negligent, and if so, to what extent this should reduce the damages awarded.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the employer had breached its duty of care. It reasoned that the employer had failed to implement adequate procedures for the safe stacking and movement of the ingots, which were heavy and prone to instability. The court applied the principles of negligence, emphasising the employer's obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to its employees. While the court found some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the employee, it ultimately upheld the substantial damages awarded at trial, finding that the employer's breach was the primary cause of the injury.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the employer had breached its duty of care to the employee by failing to provide a safe system of work, specifically in relation to the handling and storage of aluminium ingots. The court also had to determine whether the employee had been contributorily negligent, and if so, to what extent this should reduce the damages awarded.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the employer had breached its duty of care. It reasoned that the employer had failed to implement adequate procedures for the safe stacking and movement of the ingots, which were heavy and prone to instability. The court applied the principles of negligence, emphasising the employer's obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to its employees. While the court found some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the employee, it ultimately upheld the substantial damages awarded at trial, finding that the employer's breach was the primary cause of the injury.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.