Atwood Oceanics Australia Pty Ltd v Hinnen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Atwood Oceanics Australia Pty Ltd, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court. The respondent was Mr Hinnen. The dispute centred on findings of contributory negligence and the assessment of damages in a personal injury claim.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the Full Court erred in its findings regarding contributory negligence, specifically in relation to the absence of a finding by the trial judge and the Full Court's own determination that the lack of an inspection system was the primary cause of the accident. Secondly, the applicant sought to challenge the Full Court's decision on damages, particularly concerning whether a contingency ought to have been allowed for in the circumstances and the general principles applicable to such assessments.

The applicant argued that the Full Court, in applying its finding that the want of an inspection system was the primary cause of the accident, had made errors in law. These errors, it was submitted, would prevent the operation of contributory negligence in cases where an employer's breach of duty related to inspection systems. The applicant contended that even where an employer is found negligent for failing to provide a safe system of inspection, there should still be scope for contributory negligence on the part of the employee. The applicant referred to the Full Court's reasoning, which appeared to draw on authorities such as *Bankstown Foundry v Braistina* and *Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd*, and argued that the Full Court had misdirected itself in its application of these principles, potentially creating difficulties for the future application of contributory negligence in Western Australia.