Alcoa Portland Aluminium Pty Ltd v Husson

In the case of Alcoa Portland Aluminium Pty Ltd v Husson, the plaintiff, Husson, was an employee of a sub-contractor who suffered a back injury while working at the defendant's premises due to a workplace hazard. The dispute centred on the defendant's liability for the injury, specifically whether the defendant was negligent in failing to address the hazard that caused the injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge was correct in rejecting the plaintiff's belief as to the origin of the hazard, which also meant rejecting the existence of the hazard. Secondly, whether the trial judge's finding that the hazard, a protrusion, existed was open to the court, and if so, whether the trial judge had engaged in speculation to reach that conclusion. Thirdly, whether the trial judge impermissibly reversed the onus of proof. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant breached its duty of care as an occupier, and if so, whether there was a failure to apportion liability between the parties. Lastly, the court had to determine whether there was an error in finding no contributory negligence and whether the trial judge failed to give reasons for his conclusions.

The court found that the trial judge was correct in rejecting the plaintiff's belief about the origin of the hazard, but not its existence. The court held that the finding of the existence of the protrusion was open to the trial judge, and there was no evidence of the trial judge engaging in speculation. The court further found that the trial judge did not impermissibly reverse the onus of proof, and the defendant did breach its duty of care. The court held that there was no failure to apportion liability between the parties, and there was no error in finding no contributory negligence. However, the court found that the trial judge failed to give reasons for his conclusions.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, with the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant for the appeal. The trial judgment was affirmed, and the defendant was held liable for the injury suffered by the plaintiff.