Christopher Howarth v Spotless Group Limited - [2012] NSWDC 25

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Christopher Howarth v Spotless Group Limited and Ors [2012] NSWDC 25
Hearing dates: 6 February 2012
Decision date: 23 March 2012
Before: Judge M Sidis
Decision:
1.The plaintiff's loss and damage is assessed in the sum of $1,065,875.32.
2.The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed to deal with issues arising out of s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, costs and any claims for interest.

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT: Manifestly unsafe system of work - absence of instruction and supervision - circumstances of the accident - credit - inconsistencies - contributory negligence - liability of a labour hire company - causation - assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969Workers Compensation Act 1987
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Howarth (Plaintiff)
Spotless Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation: Mr P Doherty SC (For the Plaintiff)
Ms J C Chapman (For the Defendant)
RJ O'Halloran & Co (For the Plaintiff)
Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (For the Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/336491

Judgment

Mr Christopher Howarth claimed that he injured his left shoulder and elbow on 23 October 2006 when he fell in the course of his employment as a cleaner at the abattoir operated by Peel Valley Exporters Pty Limited, the second defendant.

At the time of his injury the plaintiff was employed by a labour hire company, Fast Track Pty Limited. This company was not a party to the proceedings. Fast Track hired the plaintiff's services to Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited, the first defendant, trading at Spotless at the second defendant's abattoir. Spotless held the contract to clean the second defendant's abattoir.

The plaintiff was employed as a full time casual cleaner. He claimed that his injury occurred when he slipped on the floor of the boning room of the abattoir as he was walking backwards into the room pulling a heavy hot water hose.

He claimed against the defendants on a joint and several basis, alleging that both the system of work and the facilities made available were unsafe for the task that he was required to perform.

The defendants denied liability and claimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Each defendant cross claimed against the other. I was informed at the commencement of the hearing that the defendants had resolved their differences and they requested that I order that the cross claims be dismissed with each party paying its own costs. Taking account of the resolution of these actions and of the fact that the defendants were represented at the hearing by one counsel, I considered it unnecessary to apportion liability between them.

Since they were not argued, I disregarded those parts of the defences that claimed that the second defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and relied on s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969. I proceeded on the basis that the first defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care as host employer and that the second defendant owed him…

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.

Continue reading Christopher Howarth v Spotless Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Christopher Howarth v Spotless Group Limited [2012] NSWDC 25
Case: [2012] NSWDC 25
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a claim by Christopher Howarth against Spotless Group Limited, a labour hire company, following an industrial accident. Mr Howarth, who was employed by Spotless, suffered injuries when he fell from a scaffold. The central dispute was whether the company had breached its duty of care by operating a manifestly unsafe system of work and whether there was contributory negligence on Mr Howarth's part. The court was tasked with determining liability, causation, and the appropriate assessment of damages.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether Spotless Group Limited was negligent in its supervision and instruction of Mr Howarth, leading to the unsafe conditions that caused his accident. The court had to consider the circumstances of the accident, including Mr Howarth's credibility and any inconsistencies in his account. The court also examined whether Mr Howarth's actions contributed to the accident and whether he was entitled to the full amount of damages claimed. The liability of the labour hire company under the relevant workers' compensation legislation was another key issue.

The court found that Spotless Group Limited was indeed negligent in maintaining a manifestly unsafe system of work. It was determined that there was a lack of proper instruction and supervision, contributing directly to Mr Howarth's fall. The inconsistencies in his account did not significantly affect the overall credibility of his testimony. While Mr Howarth was found to have some contributory negligence, it did not bar him from recovering damages. The court assessed the damages to be $1,065,875.32, which included both economic and non-economic losses. The proceedings were adjourned to address further issues related to statutory provisions, costs, and potential claims for interest.

The court ordered that Mr Howarth's loss and damage be assessed at $1,065,875.32. The case was adjourned to allow for further discussions on issues arising under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as well as to determine costs and any claims for interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The plaintiff's loss and damage is assessed in the sum of $1,065,875.32.

2.The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed to deal with issues arising out of s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, costs and any claims for interest.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Christopher Howarth v Spotless Group Limited and Ors [2012] NSWDC 25
Hearing dates:	6 February 2012
Decision date:	23 March 2012
Before:	Judge M Sidis
Decision:	1.The plaintiff's loss and damage is assessed in the sum of $1,065,875.32. 2.The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed to deal with issues arising out of s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, costs and any claims for interest.
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT: Manifestly unsafe system of work - absence of instruction and supervision - circumstances of the accident - credit - inconsistencies - contributory negligence - liability of a labour hire company - causation - assessment of damages
Legislation Cited:	Limitation Act 1969Workers Compensation Act 1987
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Christopher Howarth (Plaintiff) Spotless Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr P Doherty SC (For the Plaintiff) Ms J C Chapman (For the Defendant) RJ O'Halloran & Co (For the Plaintiff) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (For the Defendant)
File Number(s):	2010/336491