Clark v Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2021] WADC 11

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CLARK -v- SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2021] WADC 11
CORAM:   HERRON DCJ
HEARD:   10 - 12 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   10 FEBRUARY 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4501 of 2017
BETWEEN:   GARTH AARON CLARK
Plaintiff
AND
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Duty of care - Independent contractors - Subcontract - Whether principal contractor on building site owed duty of care to employee of subcontractor - Scope of obligations imposed on principal contractor - Section 22 Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA) - Section 5 Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) - Section 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA), s 22
Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), s 5

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T J Hammond
Defendant	:	Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Slater and Gordon
Defendant	:	Meridian Lawyers

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

CGU Insurance Limited v Coote (by his Next Friend Stephen Desmond Coote) [2018] WASCA 117
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Thompson [2019] WASCA 173
Laing O'Rourke BMC Pty Ltd v Kirwin [2011] WASCA 117
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Nikolich v Webb [2020] WASCA 169
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16

HERRON DCJ:

Introduction

In December 2014, the plaintiff, Mr Clark, suffered a back injury while working as a painter and sandblaster at the Australian Marine Complex (AMC) in Henderson, which was under the management and control of the defendant, Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd (Schneider). Mr Clark was employed by Mineworks.[1]
[1] ts 55; Amended statement of claim, par 7.
Schneider was the principal contractor for the construction of switch rooms at the AMC before they were transported to the Pilbara to be installed at the Chevron Australia Pty Ltd (Chevron) Wheatstone LNG Project site.
The issue in this case is the scope, or the content, of the duty of care owed by Schneider as the occupier and principal contractor to Mr Clark, who was working on the AMC site as an employee of Mineworks, a subcontractor to HVLV Pty Ltd, which was in turn a subcontractor to Schneider.
For the reasons which follow, I am not satisfied the scope of the duty of care owed by Schneider to Mr Clark extended to take any action in the circumstances in which he alleges he suffered injury, which would have avoided or reduced the risk of injury.

Quantum agreed

On the morning of the first day of trial, the parties agreed quantum and the trial therefore proceeded before me only in relation to liability.

Background

Prior to December 2014 Schneider entered into a contract with Bechtel International Inc (Bechtel) to construct and fit out switch rooms for 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 Clark v Schneider Electric (Australia) 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: [2021] WADC 11
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clark v Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Clark, brought an action against Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd, the defendant, alleging negligence. The dispute arose from an incident on a building site where Mr Clark, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured. The principal contractor, Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd, was responsible for managing the building site and had engaged multiple subcontractors, including the one employing Mr Clark. The central legal issues concerned the extent of the duty of care owed by the principal contractor to employees of subcontractors, the scope of obligations imposed on the principal contractor under relevant statutory provisions, and the applicability of common law principles of occupiers' liability and negligence.

The court was required to determine whether Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd owed a duty of care to Mr Clark, who was injured while performing work as an employee of a subcontractor. This involved interpreting the relevant statutory frameworks, specifically Section 22 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA), Section 5 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), and Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA). The court also had to consider the principles of common law negligence and occupiers' liability to establish the scope of the obligations imposed on the principal contractor towards the employees of subcontractors working on the site.

The Supreme Court held that Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd did owe a duty of care to Mr Clark. The court found that the principal contractor's obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act extended to ensuring the safety of all individuals on the site, including employees of subcontractors. This duty was not limited to direct employees of the principal contractor. Furthermore, the court interpreted the statutory provisions in conjunction with common law principles to conclude that the principal contractor had a responsibility to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to individuals on the site. The court also noted that the principal contractor had a role in ensuring that subcontractors complied with safety obligations, thereby extending the scope of the duty of care to the subcontractor's employees.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, ruling that Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd was liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Clark. The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the injuries and related losses. The decision underscores the principal contractor's broader responsibility for the safety of all individuals on a building site, including employees of subcontractors, under both statutory and common law frameworks.

Orders