Legal Research
Cases
Cavanagh v Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd

Cavanagh v Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 January 2004 54 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CAVANAGH -v- SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTY LTD [2004] WADC 11

CORAM: JENKINS DCJ

HEARD: 3-13 NOVEMBER 2003

DELIVERED : 28 JANUARY 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 1788 of 1999

BETWEEN: TREVOR PAUL CAVANAGH
Plaintiff
AND
SYD MATTHEWS & CO PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Duty of care - Contributory negligence - Damages

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $758,020.67

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P S Bates
Defendant: Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Paul O'Halloran & Associates
Defendant: McAuliffe Williams & Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192
McLean's Roylen Cruises Pty Ltd v McEwan (1984) 54 ALR 3
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Newman v Nugent (1992) 12 WAR 119
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 59 ALJR 564; 60 ALR 1
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Case(s) also cited:

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118
Chandler & Ors v Water Corporation [2001] WASC 166
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Crombie v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (WA) (1997) 17 WAR 291
Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd v Cuiuli (1961) 104 CLR 177
F v R (1983) 33 SASR 189
Fennell v Supervision & Engineering Services Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 47 SASR 6
General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] AC 180
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-681
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 16
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 75 ALJR 164
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423
Neill v NSW Fresh Food & Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362
Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 201
New South Wales v Lepore (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-684
O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225
O'Connor v SP Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) HCA 3
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-189
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital & Maudsley Hospital Board (1985) AC 871
Smith v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1957) 97 CLR 337
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Van der Sluice v Display Craft Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 204
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
Wylie v South Metropolitan College of TAFE [2003] WASCA 34

JENKINS DCJ: The plaintiff,…

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 Cavanagh v Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd 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: [2004] WADC 11
Decision Date: 28 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cavanagh v Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a builder, Cavanagh, and a property developer, Syd Matthews & Co Pty Ltd. The builder alleged that the developer's negligence led to injuries sustained during the construction of a building. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The builder sought damages for the injuries and argued that the developer failed to take reasonable care in ensuring a safe working environment, thereby breaching a duty of care. The developer, in turn, contested the builder's claims, asserting that the builder's own negligence contributed to the accident, and therefore, any damages should be apportioned accordingly.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the developer owed a duty of care to the builder, if that duty was breached, and if so, whether the builder's contributory negligence should reduce the damages awarded. The court had to determine the standard of care expected of the developer in maintaining a safe construction site and assess whether the developer's actions fell short of this standard. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the extent to which the builder's actions contributed to the incident and how this should impact the quantum of damages.

The court held that the developer did owe a duty of care to the builder and that this duty was indeed breached. The court found that the developer failed to provide adequate safety measures and training, which directly contributed to the injuries. Regarding contributory negligence, the court acknowledged that the builder did not take reasonable care for his own safety but found that the developer's negligence was the primary cause. As a result, the builder was awarded damages, reduced by the percentage of his own contributory negligence. The court concluded that the developer was liable for the majority of the damages, reflecting the significant role of their negligence in the incident.

The final orders of the court required the developer to pay damages to the builder, less a deduction for the builder's contributory negligence. The court specified the amount of damages to be awarded, taking into account the evidence presented regarding the builder's injuries, lost wages, and medical expenses. The developer was also ordered to cover legal costs associated with the litigation.

Orders