Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson

In the matter of Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd and Townsville City Council, the Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision of a trial judge who had found both Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd and the Townsville City Council liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Bilson, who was employed by Vatsonic to operate a hydro vac truck. The trial judge had apportioned 70% of the liability to Vatsonic and 30% to the Council, and had entered judgment against Vatsonic alone, assessing damages against it. The key legal issues the Court of Appeal needed to decide included whether the trial judge erred in failing to assess damages against the Council, whether the trial judge was correct in finding the Council liable, and whether the trial judge was correct in finding Vatsonic liable. The Court also needed to consider whether the Council's common law claim should be assessed under the statutory regime applicable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the expert opinion of Mr Kahler, and that the Council did indeed cause or contribute to Mr Bilson’s injury. With regard to the liability of Vatsonic, the Court found that the trial judge was correct to find that Vatsonic had breached its duty of care to Mr Bilson, as there was no safe system of work established. The Court also found that the trial judge did not err in finding the Council liable for the injury to Mr Bilson, as both parties were required to foresee the risk of harm to Mr Bilson and should have taken proper precautions. Finally, the Court held that the trial judge did not err in finding that the indemnity agreement between Vatsonic and the Council was not voided by s 236B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Bilson's appeal and allowed Vatsonic and WorkCover's appeal in part. The Court set aside the orders made at first instance and substituted new orders, including that there be judgment for Mr Bilson against both Vatsonic and the Council, and that Vatsonic and the Council could recover from each other under the Law Reform Act 1995. The Court also ordered that the parties file and serve on one another brief submissions in relation to the costs orders they proposed, within 7 days.