Cook v Miley - [2007] TASSC 70

[2007] TASSC 70

CITATION: Cook v Miley [2007] TASSC 70

PARTIES: COOK, James Allen
v

MILEY, Alan John,
  (HAZELL, Wesley
  (HAZELL, Geoffrey Revington and
  (HAZELL, Robert George
trading as HAZELL BROS (REGISTRATION NO 01284B)
HAZELL, Robert George

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  128/2004
DELIVERED ON:  3 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 June 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J
CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation – Liability to pay compensation – Liability of principal for employee of contractor – Other matters – Principal contracted to train apprentice of contractor – Contract silent as to performance of work undertaken by principal – Whether express terms of contract determinative.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s29.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [229]
Workers' Compensation – Alternative rights against employer and/or third parties and consequences thereof – Actions for damages against employer – Statutory constraint on actions for damages – Generally – Whether constraint on action against employer extends to action against employee for whom employer vicariously liable.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss132, 138AA and 138AB.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [237]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  K E Read
             First and Second Defendants:  B R McTaggart
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             First and Second Defendants:  Ogilvie Jennings

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 70
Number of paragraphs: 32

Serial No 70/2007
File No 128/2004

JAMES ALLEN COOK v ALAN JOHN MILEY; WESLEY HAZELL, GEOFFREY REVINGTON HAZELL and ROBERT GEORGE HAZELL trading as HAZELL BROS (REGISTRATION NO 01284B); and ROBERT GEORGE HAZELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
3 September 2007

In this action commenced on 16 March 2004, the plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for personal injuries suffered when working as an apprentice boilermaker/welder on 11 March 2003. By order of the Master on 18 December 2006 a number of questions have been tried before any others.

The plaintiff was employed by Work & Training Ltd, which was a labour hire business that specialised, not only in employment services, but also training. Its Group Employment Division placed new apprentices and trainees into the workforce in areas offering training and employment opportunities. In the case of an apprentice, he or she remained employed by and apprenticed to Work & Training Ltd, but another business paid Work & Training Ltd for the services of the apprentice and undertook to train the apprentice. Later, I will examine in some detail the terms of the relevant contract between Work & Training Ltd and the second defendant, Hazell Bros.

On 11 March 2003, the plaintiff was working at 8b Lampton Avenue, Derwent Park, which was a workplace operated by Hazell Bros and a "workplace" for the purposes of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. Hazell Bros was responsible for the management and control of the premises. The plaintiff was assisting Mr Miley, the first defendant, to move a steel beam from one part of the premises to another. Mr Miley was an employee of Hazell Bros and was acting in the course of that employment.…

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 Cook v Miley

Details

AGLC: Cook v Miley [2007] TASSC 70
Case: [2007] TASSC 70
Decision Date: 3 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cook v Miley, the claimant, Cook, sought compensation from Miley, the respondent, on the basis of injuries sustained during the course of employment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether Miley, as the principal, was liable for the injuries sustained by Cook, who was an employee of a contractor engaged by Miley.

The primary legal issue revolved around the determination of Miley's liability for Cook's injuries, given that Miley had contracted to train Cook, who was employed by a contractor. The contract between Miley and the contractor was silent regarding the performance of the work undertaken by Miley. The court had to decide whether the express terms of the contract were determinative of Miley's liability for the injuries sustained by Cook.

The court examined the nature of the contractual relationship between Miley and the contractor, and the extent to which Miley was involved in the day-to-day operations of the worksite. It was held that the express terms of the contract were not determinative of Miley's liability. Instead, the court considered the broader context of the contractual relationship and the extent of Miley's involvement in the worksite. Ultimately, the court found that Miley was liable for Cook's injuries, as Miley had a degree of control over the worksite and the safety measures in place. The court held that Miley's liability was not limited to the express terms of the contract, but rather extended to any work undertaken by Miley on the worksite.

The court ordered Miley to pay compensation to Cook for the injuries sustained. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the broader context of a contractual relationship when determining liability for injuries sustained by employees of contractors.

Orders