ANI Corporation Ltd v Wylie - [1999] QCA 281

[1999] QCA 281

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA

Appeal No 4092 of 1999

THE ANI CORPORATION LIMITED Applicant (Defendant)

THOMAS JOHNSTON WYLIE Respondent (Plaintiff)

BRISBANE

DATE 22/06/99

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant, who was the defendant in an action for damages for personal injury, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment against it and against a refusal to allow amendments to its defence.

It seeks to argue three points. The first is whether it was in breach of a duty of care to the respondent in failing to maintain a safe system of work. Its argument depends on the correct characterisation by His Honour of its duty as employer.

The applicant says that His Honour ought to have characterised the duty as a duty to warn or to instruct. Once that duty is so characterised, the applicant submits, the respondent should have failed because he adduced no evidence that the failure was causative.

The learned trial Judge characterised the duty as a failure to establish and maintain a safe system of work. That system, His Honour said, would have included proper training and instruction in the operation of the crane, including a requirement that the load not be moved towards the operator.

If that system had been operated His Honour found the accident would not have happened unless the plaintiff had on that occasion chosen to disregard that system. He concluded that once an employee had developed habits of working in that system he would probably have followed them.

The applicant says that this should properly be characterised as simply a failure to instruct the respondent not to move the load towards himself.

In my view, whichever of those approaches is correct, it does not involve any point of principle but simply which on the facts of this case was the correct way to characterise the breach of duty.

In any event, I do not think there is any basis for concluding that His Honour did not characterise the duty correctly. Evidence was given that there was an alternative safe system, the one I have just mentioned, and of course if that was so, the applicant bore the onus of establishing that it would have been unable to enforce compliance with that alternative system.

This is not a case where the breach alleged was simply one of failing to warn of an obvious hazard of which the respondent in other cases, such as Hill-Douglas v. Beverley, which was referred to us, was aware.

I do not think therefore that that was a basis to justify a grant of leave.

The second basis involved the amount of damages. It was submitted on the applicant's behalf that the respondent ceased work with the applicant, not because of the first accident but because of the second, for which the applicant was not liable.

It was said therefore that his claim for future economic loss should have been reduced accordingly. However it is plain that the injuries which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ANI Corporation Ltd v Wylie 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] QCA 281
Decision Date: 22 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of ANI Corporation Ltd v Wylie, the applicant, ANI Corporation Ltd, sought leave to appeal against the judgment for damages for personal injury awarded against it by the trial court, as well as the refusal to allow amendments to its defence. The applicant argued three points, including whether it breached a duty of care to the respondent in failing to maintain a safe system of work. The second point involved the amount of damages, and the final point was based on the failure of the learned trial Judge to grant amendment to the defence of the applicant. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal only on the ground concerning the proposed amendment to the defence, subject to the applicant undertaking to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's arguments and found that the first two issues did not involve any point of principle nor was any error demonstrated that would justify a grant of leave. However, the final point raised by the applicant was considered arguable and of some importance, and thus leave to appeal was granted on that ground only. The Court emphasised the importance of fully considering the novel issues raised by the applicant, without being dissuaded by their novelty. The Court granted leave to appeal subject to the applicant providing an undertaking to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, which the applicant agreed to provide in writing.
In summary, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal only on the ground concerning the proposed amendment to the defence of the applicant, subject to an undertaking to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The Court considered the applicant's arguments and found that the first two issues did not involve any point of principle nor was any error demonstrated that would justify a grant of leave. However, the final point raised by the applicant was considered arguable and of some importance, and thus leave to appeal was granted on that ground only. The Court emphasised the importance of fully considering the novel issues raised by the applicant, without being dissuaded by their novelty.

Orders