Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn

Case [2019] WASCA 15

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   BEST BAR PTY LTD -v- WARN [2019] WASCA 15

CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ

MURPHY JA

MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   21 NOVEMBER 2018

DELIVERED          :   29 JANUARY 2019

FILE NO/S:   CACV 20 of 2018

BETWEEN:   BEST BAR PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

JOHN ELLIOT WARN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   BRADDOCK DCJ

Citation: WARN -v- BEST BAR PTY LTD [2018] WADC 17

File Number             :   CIV 2839 of 2015


Catchwords:

Appeal - Negligence - Duty of care - Reasonable foreseeability - Workplace injury - System of work - Whether trial judge erred in finding risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable - Whether trial judge erred in finding appellant negligent by failing to provide adequate equipment, information, training, instructions or supervision - Error by trial judge did not affect outcome - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
Respondent : Mr T J Hammond & Mr A J Stewart

Solicitors:

Appellant : Kott Gunning
Respondent : Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361

M R & R C Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultra Tune (Osbourne Park) v Wyatt [No 2] [2012] WASCA 110

McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306

Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383

Sydney Water Corporation v Turano [2009] HCA 42; (2009) 239 CLR

Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wieland [2014] WASCA 41

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

  1. On 2 February 2018, Braddock DCJ ordered that judgment be entered for John Elliot Warn (the respondent) against Best Bar Pty Ltd (the appellant) in the sum of $1,383,300.12.  The damages were awarded in respect of an injury to the respondent's back sustained by him in the course of his work at the appellant's business premises on 20 May 2013.[1] 

    [1] As explained by the learned trial judge at Reasons [10], the injury suffered by the respondent was initially alleged to have occurred on, or about, 27 May 2013.  The confusion caused by this incorrect date led to the trial being adjourned and the pleaded date being amended without objection.

  2. On the date of the injury the appellant was the respondent's employer.  The learned trial judge found that the respondent's back injury was caused by the negligence of the appellant, in breach of its duty to take reasonable care for the safety of its employees and to provide those employees with a safe working environment.

  3. The appellant does not appeal the quantum of damages.  The appeal is confined to the issue of liability.

Background

  1. On 20 May 2013, the respondent was working on…

Continue reading Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Best Bar Pty Ltd v Warn [2019] WASCA 15
Case
[2019] WASCA 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Best Bar Pty Ltd (the respondent) commenced proceedings against Warn (the appellant) in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking damages for personal injuries Warn suffered at the respondent's premises. The trial judge found Warn to be contributorily negligent and the respondent to be 50% liable for the injury. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding that the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, and in finding the appellant negligent for failing to provide adequate equipment, information, training, instructions, or supervision. The Court of Appeal considered whether the errors by the trial judge affected the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal raised two grounds, both concerning the trial judge's assessment of negligence. Ground 2 argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable. Ground 4 contended that the trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligent for failing to provide adequate equipment, information, training, instructions, or supervision. The appeal hinged on whether these errors by the trial judge had an impact on the final outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that while ground 2 was made out, it did not affect the outcome of the appeal. The appeal was based on the trial judge's assessment of the foreseeability of injury, but the court concluded that the errors did not influence the overall liability determination. Additionally, ground 4 was not made out, as the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings regarding the appellant's negligence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment stood.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's determination of liability. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's argument that the trial judge erred in assessing the foreseeability of the injury or in finding the appellant negligent. As a result, the original judgment, which held the respondent 50% liable for Warn's injuries, remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Ground 4 has not been made out.Conclusion While ground 2 is made out, for the reasons set out above, it does not affect the outcome of the appeal. The appeal must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.