D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Limited - [2018] ACTSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	D’Arcy v Caltex Australia Limited
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 206
Hearing Dates:	10 April 2017 – 13 April 2017; 27 October 2017
DecisionDate:	3 August 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [193]-[197]
Catchwords:	TORTS – Personal injury – workplace accident re-lining underground petrol tanks – plaintiff claiming breach of duty of care – alleged breaches of various statutes – two defendants – liability of Fuel-Sys – whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff – liability of Caltex – whether Caltex owed the plaintiff a duty of care – whether there was a relationship of agency - whether Caltex was an ‘occupier’ of the service station site – whether Caltex breached duty of care – assessment of damages – ‘Territory or State of Connection’
Legislation Cited:	City Area Leases Act 1936 (ACT) Civil Laws (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 168 Dangerous Substances Act 2004 (ACT) s 17 Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 (ACT) ss 6, 280, 285, 286, 292, 293 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) ss 5, 19 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (ACT) ss 9, 44, 51, 52, 66, 73 Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) ss 36B, 182B(1)(e), 182D
Cases Cited:	Bankstown Foundary Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Staver [2009] NSWCA 258; 75 NSWLR 649 Cowie v Gungahlin Veterinary Services Pty Ltd [2016] ACTSC 311 Field v Shoalhaven Transport Pty Ltd and Another [1970] 3 NSWR 96 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; 240 CLR 1 Morgans v Launchbury [1973] AC 127
Parties:	Phillip Raymond D’Arcy (Plaintiff) Caltex Australia Limited (ACN 004 201 307) (First Defendant) Fuel-Sys Installations Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (ACN 143 223 803) (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr P Webb QC with Mr L Grey (Plaintiff) Mr J Gracie (First Defendant) Mr P Morris SC (Second Defendant)
Solicitors Sneddon Hall and Gallop Lawyers (Plaintiff) Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (First Defendant) Curwoods Lawyers (Second Defendant)
File Number:	SC 263 of 2014

BURNS J

On 11 September 2012, the plaintiff along with a small team of workers were re-lining an underground petrol tank with fibreglass at a petrol station in Kaleen, ACT, when a fire broke out inside the tank. This fire resulted in the plaintiff sustaining serious injuries including partial to full thickness burns to 35 per cent of his body. The first defendant, Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (Caltex), was alleged by the plaintiff to be a de facto occupier of the property upon which the petrol station and the tanks in question were situated. The second defendant, Fuel-Sys Installation Pty Ltd (Fuel-Sys) was the plaintiff’s employer. The plaintiff claims damages from both defendants claiming a breach of duty of care of the defendants, their servants or agents.

The plaintiff’s case against Fuel-Sys, his employer, was that it had breached its non-delegable duty of care to him as an employee by failing to provide a safe…

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 D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Limited

Details

AGLC: D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Limited [2018] ACTSC 206
Case: [2018] ACTSC 206
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Limited, the plaintiff, D'Arcy, sued Caltex Australia Limited and Fuel-Sys, their contractor, for personal injuries sustained during an accident at a petrol station. D'Arcy was injured when a re-lining of the underground petrol tanks caused a fire. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff argued that both defendants breached their duty of care, including statutory obligations, and that Caltex was liable as an occupier of the site or through an agency relationship. The defendants denied liability and claimed that any injuries resulted from D'Arcy's contributory negligence.

The central legal issues before the court included whether Fuel-Sys owed a duty of care to D'Arcy, if Caltex was liable as an occupier or through an agency relationship, and if D'Arcy's actions contributed to the injuries. The court also had to determine the assessment of damages and identify the appropriate jurisdiction for the claim, known as the 'Territory or State of Connection'. The court needed to decide whether the Federal Court or a state court had the authority to hear the case.

The court held that Fuel-Sys did not owe a duty of care to D'Arcy as they were not in a relationship of direct control over the site. However, Caltex was found to be an occupier of the service station site, thereby owing a duty of care to D'Arcy. The court concluded that Caltex was vicariously liable for the actions of Fuel-Sys due to an agency relationship. D'Arcy's contributory negligence was found to be minimal, and the court assessed the damages accordingly. The Federal Court determined it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The court ordered Fuel-Sys to pay D'Arcy damages for their injuries, with Caltex as the vicariously liable party. Caltex was directed to cover the costs associated with Fuel-Sys's liability. The court also addressed the issue of contributory negligence and adjusted the damages to reflect D'Arcy's minor fault. Finally, the court outlined the specific damages to be awarded to D'Arcy, including compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [193]-[197]

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.