DRAGO BROZINIC v ISS FACILITY SERVICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED and THE FEDERAL CAPITAL PRESS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED trading as THE CANBERRA TIMES
[2014] ACTSC 8 (7 February 2014)
NEGLIGENCE – breach of duty – standard of care – plaintiff injured by internal fire door on second defendant’s premises – where second defendant had actual knowledge of risk – whether the second defendant was negligent in failing to replace internal fire door with a fire door with a glass insert – building compliant with relevant standards at all times
DAMAGES – personal injury – assessment of damages – double compensation – settlement between plaintiff and first defendant – no apportionment of settlement between incidents – whether plaintiff has discharged onus to negative double compensation
DAMAGES – personal injury – whether disability caused by pre-existing rotator cuff pathology, earlier incident or events the subject of claim for damages
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 168
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 635
Caltex Tanker Co (Aust) Pty Ltd v Kerr [1999] NSWCA 115
Harris v Commissioner for Social Housing (2013) 8 ACTLR 98
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
McLaurin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1961) 104 CLR 381
Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341
Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65
SAS Trustee Corporation v Budd [2005] NSWCA 366
Shaw v Thomas (2010) NSWCA 169
Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 574
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Waverley Council v Ferreira [2005] Aust Torts Reports 81-818
No. SC 457 of 2011
Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 7 February 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 457 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN:DRAGO BROZINIC
Plaintiff
AND:ISS FACILITY SERVICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
First Defendant
AND:THE FEDERAL CAPITAL PRESS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED trading as THE CANBERRA TIMES
Second Defendant
ORDER
Judge: Master Mossop
Date: 7 February 2014
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- Judgment be entered for the second defendant.
- The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant’s costs.
- Order 2 does not take effect if either party notifies my associate by email within seven days of the date of these orders that it wishes to be heard in relation to costs.
Introduction
The plaintiff was employed by ISS Facility Services Australia Limited, the first defendant. He was a cleaning supervisor. His formal title was Regional Manager Client Services – ACT. One aspect of his duties was to deliver cleaning supplies to the premises where company cleaners worked. On 8 April 2010 the plaintiff was delivering cleaning supplies to the premises of the second defendant, The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Limited in Fyshwick. When entering the…
Continue reading Brozinic v ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brozinic v ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd [2014] ACTSC 8
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the second defendant breached its duty of care by failing to replace the internal fire door with a fire door that had a glass insert, and if so, whether this breach caused Brozinic's injuries. The court also needed to determine the extent of Brozinic's damages, whether he had suffered double compensation, and whether his disability was caused by pre-existing rotator cuff pathology, an earlier incident, or the events that were the subject of the claim for damages. The court found that the second defendant was not negligent in failing to replace the internal fire door, as the building always complied with the relevant standards. The court also found that Brozinic had not discharged the onus to negative double compensation.
The court concluded that Brozinic had not suffered any injuries as a result of the second defendant's alleged negligence and that the onus was on Brozinic to prove his case. The court held that Brozinic had failed to establish his case on the balance of probabilities. The court awarded judgment in favour of the second defendant and ordered that Brozinic pay the second defendant's costs. However, this order does not take effect if either party notifies the court within seven days of the date of the orders that they wish to be heard in relation to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment be entered for the second defendant.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant’s costs.
3. Order 2 does not take effect if either party notifies my associate by email within seven days of the date of these orders that it wishes to be heard in relation to costs.
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.