Australian Postal Corporation v Jacqualine Wooby

[2013] HCASL 212

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

v

JACQUALINE WOOBY

[2013] HCASL 212
S142/2013

1. The respondent was a sub-contractor to V & E Transport Pty Ltd, who provided parcel delivery services to the applicant.  On 5 June 2008, the respondent injured her back lifting a heavy parcel at the applicant's post depot.  The respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant in negligence for failing to provide a safe system.

2. On 14 March 2012, the District Court of New South Wales (Balla DCJ) held that the applicant did not owe a duty of care to the respondent in relation to the sorting of parcels before delivery.  The primary judge further held that, if a duty of care were owed, it had not been breached.

3. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal (McColl, Basten and Ward JJA).  On 19 June 2013, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant owed a duty of care to the respondent because the particular aspect of the respondent's work in the course of which the injury occurred was part of the system devised by the applicant.  The Court of Appeal considered it to be particularly relevant that the respondent was contracted to work solely for the applicant and that she was not exercising any particular skill or specialist expertise in carrying out her functions.  The Court of Appeal further held that the applicant breached its duty of care by failing to take steps to minimise the risk of the activity.  That the respondent was aware that the parcel was likely to be heavy and did not ask for assistance was relevant only to contributory negligence.  It did not negative the applicant's liability.  The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the District Court for the assessment of damages, contributory negligence and the costs of the trial.

4. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal wrongly identified the risk of harm as the risk that the respondent might suffer injury lifting a heavy parcel unassisted, as distinct from the risk of lifting a heavy parcel without first knowing that it was heavy.  The applicant enjoys insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave should be refused.

5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
   
   

S.M. Kiefel
13 December 2013 P.A. Keane