Canberra Wall Frames v White - [1999] FCA 1810

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Canberra Wall Frames v White
[1999] FCA 1810
NEGLIGENCE – contributory negligence - appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory awarding the respondent damages for negligence giving rise to personal injury – respondent was a carpenter who was subcontracted to erect on-site prefabricated timber wall frames manufactured and supplied by the appellant – one of the frames supplied was defective and unsafe to walk upon – frame collapsed whilst respondent was walking on it – whether respondent was contributorily negligent – whether respondent’s failure to act on discovering the problem was a basis for contributory negligence – whether reg 73 of the Regulations under the Scaffolding and Lifts Act, 1912-1948 (NSW) as applicable in the Australian Capital Territory applies where the person carrying out building work is also engaged in it – apportionment of responsibility.
Scaffolding and Lifts Act1957 (ACT)
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, distinguished
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24, cited
Commissioner for Railways (Qld) v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563, cited
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529, applied
HC Buckman & Son Pty Ltd v Flanagan (1974) 133 CLR 422, referred to
General Constructions Pty Ltd v Peterson (1962) 108 CLR 251, cited
Armstrong & De Mamiel Constructions Pty Ltd v Virenius (1981) 58 FLR 77, referred to
Voce v Watson (1989) 97 FLR 448, referred to
Steele v Twin City Rigging Pty Ltd (1992) 114 FLR 99, referred to
Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65, applied
CANBERRA FURNITURE MANUFACTURING PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 644 540), DAWE INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 576 823) and DOSYO PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 620 773) t/as CANBERRA WALL FRAMES v IAN JOHN WHITE
A 42 OF 1999
MILES, HILL and GYLES JJ
CANBERRA
24 DECEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY A 42 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

CANBERRA FURNITURE MANUFACTURING PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 644 540), DAWE INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 576 823) and DOSYO PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 620 773) t/as CANBERRA WALL FRAMES
Appellant

AND:

IAN JOHN WHITE
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, HILL and GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 DECEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2.The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be set aside and in lieu thereof substitute judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $89,986.98.

3.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 42 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM…

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 Canberra Wall Frames v White 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: [1999] FCA 1810
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the appeal of Canberra Wall Frames Pty Limited against Ian John White revolves around an incident that occurred during the construction of a cottage in Conder. The respondent, a carpenter subcontracted to erect prefabricated timber wall frames supplied by the appellant, suffered personal injury when a frame gave way beneath him. The Supreme Court awarded the respondent damages for negligence, a decision the appellant contests on the grounds of contributory negligence.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether the respondent's negligence contributed to his injury, thereby reducing the damages recoverable from the appellant. The respondent's actions, including the decision to proceed with the erection of a defective frame without additional timber and the method used to secure the roof trusses, were scrutinized to determine if they were contributory factors to his fall. The court had to weigh the respondent's conduct against the appellant's alleged negligence in supplying defective frames and the overall safety of the construction site.

The court found that the respondent's actions did indeed contribute to his injury. It was determined that the respondent should have taken steps to rectify the defect in frame 39 or reported it to the builder. Additionally, the method of securing the roof trusses by walking on the top plate was deemed unsafe. Consequently, the court reduced the damages awarded to the respondent, acknowledging the appellant's liability but also the respondent's contributory negligence.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and substitute it with a new judgment awarding the respondent $89,986.98. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Supreme Court, while the respondent was required to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. This decision highlights the importance of both parties' responsibilities in maintaining a safe working environment and the impact of contributory negligence on the quantum of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be set aside and in lieu thereof substitute judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $89,986.98.

3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which awarded Ian John White (“the respondent”) judgment in the sum of $179,973.95 against Canberra Furniture Manufacturing Pty Limited, Dawe Industries Pty Limited and Dosyo Pty Limited, together trading as Canberra Wall Frames (“the appellant”) for damages for negligence giving rise to personal injury. In the course of the judgment, a defence of contributory negligence was rejected. This appeal is restricted to that issue.Salient facts The appellant was a manufacturer and supplier of timber cottage frames. On or about 10 March 1994 it supplied to Sitecove Pty Limited (“the builder”) timber wall frames for a cottage to be erected on Lot 24, Section 109, Conder, in the Australian Capital Territory. The builder subcontracted to the respondent and his son, Neil White, who operated in partnership, the task of erecting the timber wall frames supplied by the appellant, and then to erect roof trusses on that frame. His Honour’s account of the facts is as follows:“The plaintiff went to the site in Conder in March 1994. The frames were on the site. The first thing that was done was for the plaintiff and his son to mark out the slab with chalk, open the bundle of frames all strapped together and go ahead with the numbers and stand the sections of frame up in their correct positions. Having put the frames up, the frame would be braced to hold them secure. The floor plate, which is the bottom plate of the frame, was nailed down to hold it in position. The top horizontal piece of each frame was known as the top plate. In the course of carrying out that work, the plaintiff noted that frame 39 had a problem at the end of the cavity slider where it met frame 38. It appeared to the plaintiff at the time, while they were erecting the wall frames, that frame 39 needed a stud underneath the plate. No extra timber had been supplied and there was nothing marked on the plan to indicate that something had to be done to rectify the defect which the plaintiff saw. They went ahead with the work in the hope that the builder would come along and sort out the problem. The builder never arrived and the plaintiff and his son went ahead and completed the job. It emerged in cross-examination that in order to attach the top plate of frame 39 to the top plate of frame 38, the plaintiff or his son skewed three or four nails into frame 38. There was also a gang nail over the top. A gang nail is a metal plate with spikes in it. It took two days to erect the frame on the site. The roof trusses were not on the site during that period. The plaintiff and his son left the job and went to another job. Approximately two days later they returned to the site. The trusses were on the site laying across the wet areas at the back of the house on the erect frames. They were resting on the top plate of two load bearing walls, which were external walls, and resting on the internal frames. The plaintiff and his son then set the whole roof out on the top plate by walking around the top plate of the erected wall frames. Having done that, they set about putting the trusses in position. To do that the plaintiff and the son followed the usual practice of walking on the top plate and carrying the trusses into position. They worked on 16 March and knocked off, intending to get an early start the next day, which they did. The first truss that they moved on the morning of 17 March was a girder truss which had to go across the garage sections of the house. A girder truss is generally a stronger truss. It is a bit heavier as it has brackets bolted to it and a lot of other trusses fit onto it and it carries the weight. The subject girder truss was made of hardwood and weighed about 80 or 90 kilograms. Hence it was fairly heavy and it was a two man job to move it. The son was carrying the truss on the external wall and the plaintiff was starting to walk from bedroom 2 along frame 39 towards frame 38. When he got halfway across, the plate gave way beneath him and he fell to the concrete slab hitting his chin on the truss on the way down and landing on his “rump” on the floor, mainly on his left side. He immediately felt terrible pain and knew there was something wrong. A person working next door heard the plaintiff scream, came over and by the use of a mobile phone rang an ambulance. The plaintiff was conveyed to the Woden Valley Hospital. His contention was that frame 39 was defective. The top plate was short. It should have butted right into frame 38.” (our emphasis)

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 42 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	CANBERRA FURNITURE MANUFACTURING PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 644 540), DAWE INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 576 823) and DOSYO PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 620 773) t/as CANBERRA WALL FRAMES Appellant
AND:	IAN JOHN WHITE Respondent
JUDGES:	MILES, HILL and GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	24 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 42 OF 1999