Barnes v Toll Transport Pty Ltd - [2011] TASSC 25

[2011] TASSC 25

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Barnes v Toll Transport Pty Ltd [2011] TASSC 25

PARTIES:  BARNES, Christopher Roderick Manuel
  v
  TOLL TRANSPORT PTY LIMITED
  STEELBRO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

FILE NO/S:  32/2003
DELIVERED ON:  27 May 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  25, 26 and 27 October 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – The law of torts generally – Joint or several tortfeasors – Contribution – Apportionment – Third party proceedings – Reasonableness of settlement determined on what was known or ought to have been known at the time of settlement.

Saccardo Constructions Pty Ltd v Gammon (No 2) (1994) 63 SASR 333; Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 603; Dowthwaite Holdings Pty Ltd v Saliba [2006] WASCA 72; Woolworths (WA) Pty Ltd v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd (2004) 28 WAR 540, referred to.
Wrongs Act (Tas) 1954, ss3, 4(1).
Aust Dig Torts [12]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  Not applicable
             Defendant:  P L Jackson
             Third Party:  K E Read
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Not applicable
             Defendant:  Page Seager
             Third Party:  Hugh Murray

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 25
Number of paragraphs: 131

Serial No 25/2011
File No 32/2003

CHRISTOPHER RODERICK MANUEL BARNES v TOLL TRANSPORT PTY LTD, STEELBRO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

27 May 2011

The plaintiff, Christopher Barnes, "Barnes", lost the four fingers on his right hand save for half of his index finger in an accident, on 20 April 2000. The accident occurred in the course of his employment with the defendant, Toll Transport Pty Ltd, "Toll". He recovered workers compensation for his injuries from Toll. He also sued Toll for common law damages on the basis that his injuries had been caused by its breach of a duty of care it owed to him. Toll agreed to pay Barnes damages and costs in settlement of this claim.
Barnes' injuries were suffered as he was extending the leg of a stabiliser on a truck trailer known as a sidelifter. Toll had purchased the sidelifter from the third party, Steelbro Australia Pty Ltd, "Steelbro". Toll instituted third party proceedings against Steelbro seeking indemnification against or a contribution towards its liability to Barnes on the basis that his injuries were caused by Steelbro's breach of a duty of care it owed as the designer and supplier of the sidelifter. Steelbro denied liability.
This decision deals only with the third party proceedings. However, the issues raised require that attention be given to the responsibility of all three parties for the accident, and the reasonableness of Toll's settlement of Barnes' claim for common law damages.
Barnes was employed by Toll as a truck driver. On occasions in the course of his employment, he was required to use a sidelifter. A sidelifter is a trailer designed for carting shipping containers. It is fitted with cranes and stabilisers that can be used to lift containers to and from its tray. The sidelifter Barnes was using when injured…

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 Barnes v Toll Transport 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

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: [2011] TASSC 25
Decision Date: 27 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barnes sued Toll Transport Pty Ltd, a transport company, for damages relating to a workplace accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred on the fairness of the settlement reached between Barnes and another party involved in the accident, and whether Toll was liable for a portion of the settlement based on the principles of contribution and apportionment under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (Qld). The court had to decide if the settlement was reasonable at the time it was made, considering the information that was known or ought to have been known.

The key legal issues were whether the settlement was reasonable in light of the available information at the time and whether Toll was liable for any portion of the settlement. Toll argued that the settlement was unreasonable because it did not account for their potential liability. Barnes contended that the settlement was fair given the circumstances and information available at the time. The court needed to weigh the information available to the parties at the time of settlement against the subsequent arguments about the fairness of the settlement.

The court found that the settlement was reasonable at the time it was entered into, based on the information available to the parties. The court held that the reasonableness of the settlement was assessed based on what was known or ought to have been known at the time, not on hindsight. The court also found that Toll was not liable for any portion of the settlement as they were not a party to the settlement agreement and the settlement was not unfair to them. The court concluded that Toll was not responsible for contributing to the settlement.

The court ordered that Toll Transport Pty Ltd was not liable for any contribution or apportionment of the settlement amount paid to Barnes. The court dismissed Toll's claim for contribution, and the judgment stood in favour of Barnes.

Orders