Boaden v Trustee for Shade Unit Trust T/as Clevershade - [2013] ACTSC 52

DARREN BOADEN v THE TRUSTEE FOR SHADE UNIT TRUST t/as CLEVERSHADE

[2013] ACTSC 52 (28 March 2013)

PERSONAL INJURY - fall from ladder in course of employment – duty of care of employer to experienced and trusted employee – contributory negligence – breach of statutory duty – assessment of damages resulting from wrist injury

Scaffolding and Lifts Regulation 1950 (ACT)
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, s 102 (2)

Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 214 ALR 349; (2005) 79 ALJR 839
H C Buckman & Son Pty Ltd v Flanagan (1974) 133 CLR 422
Millington v Wilkie t/as Max Wilkie Plumbing Services & Anor [2005] NSWCA 45; (2005) 62 NSWLR 322
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5
Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 428

No. SC 879 of 2011

Judge: Sidis AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 28 March 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 879 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:DARREN BOADEN

Plaintiff

AND:THE TRUSTEE FOR SHADE UNIT TRUST t/as CLEVERSHADE
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Sidis AJ
Date:  28 March 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $235,656.63.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

I make the usual order as to interest.

The exhibits will be retained for 28 days.

My reasons are published.

Darren Boaden was injured when he fell from the roof on which he was working on 18 May 2011. He claimed against his employer, the Trustee for the Shade Unit Trust, trading as Clevershade, claiming that it was negligent in the way in which he was required to carry out his work and that it was in breach of the statutory duty imposed under the Scaffolding and Lifts Regulation 1950 (ACT).

The defendant denied that it was negligent and denied that it was in breach of its statutory duty. The defendant also challenged the plaintiff’s claims of injury, damage and loss.

THE ACCIDENT

The plaintiff’s evidence concerning the circumstances in which he was injured was not challenged. It was as follows.

The defendant was engaged in the business of constructing decks, patio covers and sunrooms at residential premises. It employed the plaintiff as a project manager. The plaintiff’s duties in this role included dealing with clients and the defendant’s subcontractors and arranging to have defects repaired. Occasionally he personally undertook the repair of defects.

On 18 May 2011 at 9.30am he attended premises in North Lyneham to repair defective guttering that was leaking. He had been to the premises on prior occasions during construction work at the site and on inspection for the source of the leak. The repair was to be undertaken on the roof of the premises at the rear of the building.

The…

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 Boaden v Trustee for Shade Unit Trust T/as Clevershade 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: [2013] ACTSC 52
Decision Date: 28 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Boaden v Trustee for Shade Unit Trust T/as Clevershade, the plaintiff, Mr. Boaden, sought damages for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The dispute arose from a fall from a ladder while Mr. Boaden was employed by Clevershade, an awning and shade manufacturing company. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr. Boaden alleged that Clevershade failed to provide a safe working environment and breached its duty of care to him as an experienced and trusted employee. He further contended that the company had contravened statutory obligations concerning workplace safety.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether Clevershade had breached its duty of care towards Mr. Boaden and whether Mr. Boaden's contributory negligence, if any, should reduce the damages awarded. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Clevershade had violated relevant statutory duties and assess the quantum of damages for the injuries sustained. The court examined the evidence regarding the circumstances of the accident, the adequacy of the safety measures in place, and the nature and extent of Mr. Boaden's injuries. The court also took into account the statutory obligations under the relevant safety legislation.

The court found that Clevershade had indeed breached its duty of care by not providing adequate safety equipment and failing to ensure a safe working environment. It was held that the employer's failure to supply a stable ladder and to enforce safety protocols contributed to the accident. While Mr. Boaden was found to have some contributory negligence, this did not absolve Clevershade of its liability. The statutory obligations were also found to have been breached. The court assessed the damages for the wrist injury, taking into account medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and future care requirements. The total award of damages was set at $235,656.63.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Clevershade, was to pay the plaintiff, Mr. Boaden, the sum of $235,656.63 as damages for his injuries. The defendant was also to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed. An order for interest was made in the usual terms, and the exhibits were to be retained for 28 days. The court's detailed reasons for the judgment were published, providing a comprehensive explanation of the findings and the legal basis for the award.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $235,656.63.

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

3. I make the usual order as to interest.

4. The exhibits will be retained for 28 days.

5. My reasons are published.

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.