Legal Research
Cases
Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co

Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co

Link copied

Case Copied 2 December 1980 39 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ.

THE QUEEN v. TURBET; Ex parte AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES AND BUILDING LABOURERS' FEDERATION

(1980) 144 CLR 335

2 December 1980

Industrial Law (Cth)

Industrial Law (Cth)—Conciliation and Arbitration—Industrial dispute extending beyond limits of one State—Dispute about handling structural steel at power station site—Demarcation dispute between unions—History of similar disputes between same unions in more than one State—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.).

Decisions

1980, December 2.
The following written judgments were delivered: -

STEPHEN J. On 4th May 1979, Commissioner Turbet made a finding that an industrial dispute existed between the Metal Trades Industry Association, an employer, Electric Power Transmission Pty. Ltd., and two trade unions, the Federated Ironworkers' Association ("the F.I.A.") and the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation ("the B.L.F."). (at p339)

2. The Commissioner's finding followed a notification by the Metal Trades Industry Association of a situation likely to lead to an industrial dispute. (at p339)

3. In his finding the Commissioner described the dispute as relating to "the allocation of labour to effect transportation and unloading of steel from Electric Power Transmission Pty. Ltd., Sydney plant and the Loy Yang power station construction site in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria". (at p339)

4. The employer was engaged in the construction of an electric power generating station at Loy Yang. For that purpose structural steel fabricated in its Sydney plant was to be transported by rail from Sydney to Morwell in Victoria, from where it was to be carried by road to the nearby Loy Yang site. However, despite the terms of the finding, there was no evidence before the Commissioner of any dispute relating to any part of the inter-State transportation of steel to Loy Yang. The evidence of disputation was confined to a dispute about which group of employees should have allocated to them the work of unloading the steel on its arrival at Loy Yang and of subsequently handling that steel on the site. The dispute of course affected the employer, since each union made a claim on it inconsistent with the other union's claim; but essentially the dispute lay between the two unions, as to whose members should have the work allocated to them. (at p340)

5. The dispute in evidence before the Commissioner involved no interstate elements. The interstate carriage of the steel was not in question and neither the fact that each of the two unions had members Australia-wide nor the fact that the employer was engaged in activities in at least two States and was supplying the Victorian site with steel from interstate, sufficed to make the dispute an interstate dispute. Hence the contention of the prosecutor, the B.L.F., that, for want of any interstate element in the dispute which was before Commissioner Turbet, prohibition should go. (at p340)

6. Had matters remained in this position on the return of the order nisi for prohibition there would have been a clear case…

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 Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co 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: [1980] HCA 47
Decision Date: 2 December 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aston, the plaintiff, brought an action against Harlee Manufacturing Co, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an alleged breach of duty of care by the defendant. The case was appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A further issue was whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the defendant's breach of duty, and if so, the extent of the damages recoverable.

The High Court considered the principles of negligence, particularly the foreseeability of harm and the proximity between the parties. The court analysed the nature of the plaintiff's employment and the defendant's operations to ascertain whether a reasonable employer would have foreseen the risk of injury to the plaintiff and taken steps to mitigate that risk. The court applied established legal tests for establishing a breach of duty and causation in negligence.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. However, the court also found that the plaintiff had contributed to his own injuries, and therefore reduced the damages awarded accordingly.

Orders