Bhambra v Roet

Case [2003] NSWCA 393
CITATION: Bhambra v Roet [2003] NSWCA 393
HEARING DATE(S): 7 October 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 December 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; McColl JA at 52; Davies AJA at 53
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the appellants; (3) The respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and in the court below.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Breach of Statutory Duty - Builder injured whilst renovating a house - Failure to erect safety rails - Failure to provide a safety-harness - Breach of statutory duty as owners and occupiers - Appellant disallowed from raising new matter on appeal - Whether appellant carried out construction work.
LEGISLATION CITED: Construction Safety Regulations 1950
CASES CITED: Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Ltd (2001) Aust Tort Reports 81-603
Bright v Sampson & Duncan Enterprises Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 346
H C Buckman & Son Pty Limited v Flannigan & Anor (1974) 133 CLR 422
Burston v Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Board (1948) 78 CLR 143
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Kolodziejczyk v Grandview Pty Ltd (2002) Aust Tort Reports 81-673
Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Ltd v Gordon [2001] NSWCA 65
NRMA Insurance Ltd v B & B Shipping and Marine Salvage Co Pty Ltd (1947) 47 SR(NSW) 273
Paptonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1985] 156 CLR 7
Stevens v Brodribb Saw Milling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
Whisprun v Dixon (2003) 77 AJLR 1598

PARTIES :

 Bhupinder Singh BHAMBRA (First Appellant)
Harbans Kaur BHAMBRA (Second Appellant)
Pierre Jacobs ROET (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41208/02
COUNSEL: J D HISLOP, QC/ G A SEIB (Appellants)
I HARRISON, SC/ J WILSON (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: McCulloch & Buggy (Appellants)
Lamond Howard & Associates (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC152/01
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		J C Gibson DCJ


                          CA 41208/02
                          DC 152/01

                          SANTOW JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          DAVIES AJA

                          22 DECEMBER 2003

      Bhupinder Singh BHAMBRA & 1 ORS v Pierre Jacobs ROET
Judgment

1 SANTOW JA:

      INTRODUCTION
      The appellants contend that the trial judge, Gibson DCJ, erred in finding them liable to the respondent for breach of statutory duty or in tort for negligence. There is also a challenge to the trial judge’s assessment of damages as erroneous and excessive. These actions arose in circumstances where the appellants, husband and wife, engaged the respondent, a carpenter, to finish off carpentry work in their home, from a previous builder, as part of substantial renovation and reconstruction works. The respondent fell from the first floor and injured himself, there being no safety rails installed.

2 So far as breach of statutory duty is concerned, following an amended pleading, the respondent was successful at trial in contending that the absence of safety rails around the first floor of that house where the respondent was carrying out carpentry work, contravened…

Continue reading Bhambra v Roet

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bhambra v Roet [2003] NSWCA 393
Case
[2003] NSWCA 393
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Bhambra v Roet*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a claim brought by a builder who sustained injuries while renovating a house. The builder alleged negligence and breach of statutory duty against the owners and occupiers of the property. The central dispute revolved around the owners' alleged failure to provide adequate safety measures, specifically safety rails and a safety harness, during the renovation work.

The Court was required to determine whether the owners, as occupiers, had breached their statutory duty of care to the builder. A key legal issue was whether the builder had in fact carried out construction work in a manner that engaged the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the appellant (the builder) should be permitted to raise new arguments on appeal that had not been considered by the trial court.

The Court found that the owners had indeed breached their statutory duty. It reasoned that the owners, by virtue of their occupation of the premises, owed a duty to ensure the safety of those working on their property. The failure to erect safety rails and provide a safety harness constituted a breach of this duty. The Court also determined that the work undertaken by the builder qualified as construction work for the purposes of the relevant legislation. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original verdict and judgment in favour of the builder and entering judgment for the owners. The builder was ordered to pay the owners' costs of both the appeal and the proceedings in the court below.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed; (2) Verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the appellants; (3) The respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and in the court below.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.