SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | D’Arcy v Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd |
Citation: | [2019] ACTCA 27 |
Hearing Date: | 15 August 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 23 October 2019 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Charlesworth JJ |
Decision: | Appeal dismissed with costs |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – NEGLIGENCE – Duty of care – workplace accident fibreglassing an underground petroleum storage tank – appellant severely burnt – claim against occupier of premises which had lease from Crown lessee – appellant an employee of a contractor engaged by Crown lessee – scope of duty of care – whether obligations under Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (ACT) affect content of duty of care – whether occupier obliged to take steps to check capacity of contractor of Crown lessee to comply with proposed method of work – whether primary judge erred in finding that occupier of premises did not breach duty of care – he did not |
| APPEAL – STATUTORY DUTY – Duties on persons in control of non-registrable premises under Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 (ACT) – whether primary judge erred in finding that statutory duties arising under regulations were not breached – he did not | |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 42, 43, 44, 168 Dangerous Substances Act 2004 (ACT), ss 10, 16, 17, 21, 31 Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), s 182D |
Cases Cited: | Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258; 75 NSWLR 649 |
Parties: | Phillip D’Arcy (Appellant) Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel P Webb QC and L Grey (Appellant) R Cavanagh SC and J Gracie (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Sneddon Hall & Gallop (Appellant) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondent) | |
File Number: | AC 71 of 2018 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before:… |
Continue reading D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- D'Arcy v Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2019] ACTCA 27
- Case
- [2019] ACTCA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the occupier owed a duty of care to the appellant, the scope of that duty, and whether the occupier had breached that duty. Specifically, the court considered whether the obligations imposed by the *Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011* (ACT) affected the content of the occupier's duty of care, and whether the occupier was obliged to verify the contractor's capacity to comply with the proposed method of work. The court also had to determine if the primary judge had erred in finding that the occupier had not breached its duty of care.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's finding that the occupier did not breach its duty of care. The court reasoned that the occupier's duty of care did not extend to supervising the detailed work practices of the contractor engaged by the Crown lessee, nor was it required to investigate the contractor's capacity to perform the work safely. The court held that the occupier was entitled to rely on the contractor to implement safe work practices, particularly given the existence of specific regulatory obligations under the *Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011* (ACT) which placed the primary responsibility for safety on the contractor and the Crown lessee. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.