Coregas Pty Ltd v Penford Australia Pty Ltd

Coregas Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed a decision of the primary judge who found it liable to contribute to damages paid by Penford Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) to an injured worker. The worker was injured while manoeuvring a large gas cylinder down a ramp as part of the respondent's dextrin production process. The gas cylinders were supplied by the appellant in a cage that included a ramp. The respondent had successfully claimed contribution from the appellant, arguing the appellant owed a duty of care to the worker.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the supplier of the gas cylinders owed a duty of care to the respondent's employee, whether that duty was breached, and whether the supplier's actions caused the worker's injury. The court also considered whether the primary judge had erred in the apportionment of liability between the parties, specifically by taking into account a factually incorrect consideration and failing to consider relevant matters. The admissibility and relevance of expert evidence concerning slips, falls, and the safety of the unloading system were also pertinent.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal in part, found that the supplier did owe a duty of care to the employee. This duty arose because the integrated, purpose-built ramp, supplied with the gas cylinders, invited a particular method of unloading that was found to be hazardous. The court rejected the appellant's argument that factual causation was not established. However, the court determined that the primary judge had erred in the apportionment of liability, having relied on an incorrect factual premise and failed to consider relevant factors. Consequently, the court varied the contribution order.

The orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be allowed in part, setting aside the judgment for 50 percent contribution and substituting it with a judgment for 25 percent contribution. The respondent was ordered to pay 50 percent of the appellant's costs of the appeal, with other orders of the primary judge being confirmed.