Reported Decision:
7 DCLR (NSW) 212
District Court
CITATION: Anthony v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 109 HEARING DATE(S): 10 and 11 June 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
2 July 2008JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Hungerford ADCJ DECISION: Verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $50,000 on the claim. As to the defendant's cross-claim, verdict for the defendant/cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant for indemnity of damages recovered by the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000 plus costs and expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claim; and verdicts for the first and third cross-defendants against the defendant/cross-claimant. Parties to prepare short minutes of order to give effect to decision, including as to costs. CATCHWORDS: TORTS - negligence - employer's duty of care to mother of seriously injured worker - breach of the duty - claim for damages for nervous shock - whether injury consequent upon injury to worker - costs - STATUTES - interpretation - purposive approach - statutory instrument - meaning of the phrase "for any injury to" - significance of use of the word "for" - maxim expressio unius - use of maxim to confirm earlier meaning of provision - WORKERS COMPENSATION - insurance - liability of insurer - whether deemed insurer on risk in relation to an injured trainee worker - liability of licensed insurer - liability of public liability insurer - dispute between insurers and employer as to indemnity under statutory workers compensation insurance policy - indemnity of employer in respect of liability independently of the statute for damages to person other than the injured worker - mother of injured worker suffering nervous shock - meaning of the phrase "for any injury to" the worker - whether employer entitled to indemnity under statutory policy - insurer so liable - costs LEGISLATION CITED: Apprenticeship and Traineeship Act 2001
Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 30, 31, 33 and Pt 3
Legal Profession Act 2004, s 347
NSW Self Insurance Corporation Act 2004
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, ss 8(1) and 26(1)
Workers Compensation Act 1916 (Qld), ss 8(1), 9 and 9A
Workers Compensation Act 1926, s 18(2A)-(2K) and Appx 1 of Div 1
Workers Compensation Act 1987, ss 151 P, 155(1), 155(1A), 158, 159(1) and Div 1 of Pt 7
Workers Compensation (Amendment) Act 1986
Workers Compensation (Benefits) Amendment Act 1989
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment (Trainees) Act 2003, cl 2 of Sch 6
Workers Compensation Regulation 2003, cl 49(1) and Form 3 in Sch 1
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, s 250CASES CITED: Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2000) 23 WAR 35
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Carr v Financial Corporation of Australia Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 29
East Finchley Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 90 ALR 457
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Comber (1986) 10 FCR 88
Fennell v Supervision and Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd and Santos Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6
Hughes v Sydney Day Nursery Children's…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Anthony v Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd 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
- [2008] NSWDC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute between Anthony and Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd arose from an incident where a worker under the employer's supervision was severely injured, leading to the plaintiff, the worker's mother, claiming damages for nervous shock. The court was tasked with determining whether the employer owed a duty of care to the mother, if that duty was breached, and if the employer's insurer was liable for damages under the statutory workers compensation insurance policy. Additionally, the court had to interpret the statutory phrase "for any injury to" and resolve a dispute between various insurers regarding indemnity.
The legal issues included the extent of the employer's duty of care towards the mother of an injured worker, the breach of that duty, and the interpretation of the statutory phrase in question. The court had to consider whether the employer's statutory insurer was liable for the mother's damages, and if so, which insurer—the workers compensation insurer or the public liability insurer—was primarily responsible. The court also had to determine the meaning of the phrase "for any injury to" and its implications for indemnity under the statutory policy.
The court found that the employer did owe a duty of care to the mother, which was breached, leading to her nervous shock. The statutory phrase "for any injury to" was interpreted in a manner that supported the employer's entitlement to indemnity from the statutory insurer. The court held that the workers compensation insurer was liable for the damages awarded to the mother. This interpretation was based on a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, considering the context and purpose of the statutory scheme. The court also resolved the dispute between insurers, ruling in favour of the statutory insurer's liability for the indemnity.
The final orders included a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000, and a verdict for the defendant/cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant for indemnity of the same amount, plus costs and expenses. The first and third cross-defendants were found not liable against the defendant/cross-claimant. The parties were directed to prepare short minutes of the order to give effect to the decision, including the allocation of costs.
The legal issues included the extent of the employer's duty of care towards the mother of an injured worker, the breach of that duty, and the interpretation of the statutory phrase in question. The court had to consider whether the employer's statutory insurer was liable for the mother's damages, and if so, which insurer—the workers compensation insurer or the public liability insurer—was primarily responsible. The court also had to determine the meaning of the phrase "for any injury to" and its implications for indemnity under the statutory policy.
The court found that the employer did owe a duty of care to the mother, which was breached, leading to her nervous shock. The statutory phrase "for any injury to" was interpreted in a manner that supported the employer's entitlement to indemnity from the statutory insurer. The court held that the workers compensation insurer was liable for the damages awarded to the mother. This interpretation was based on a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, considering the context and purpose of the statutory scheme. The court also resolved the dispute between insurers, ruling in favour of the statutory insurer's liability for the indemnity.
The final orders included a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000, and a verdict for the defendant/cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant for indemnity of the same amount, plus costs and expenses. The first and third cross-defendants were found not liable against the defendant/cross-claimant. The parties were directed to prepare short minutes of the order to give effect to the decision, including the allocation of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $50,000 on the claim. As to the defendant's cross-claim, verdict for the defendant/cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant for indemnity of damages recovered by the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000 plus costs and expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claim; and verdicts for the first and third cross-defendants against the defendant/cross-claimant. Parties to prepare short minutes of order to give effect to decision, including as to costs.
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.