CITATION: Davis v Nolras Pty Ltd (previously known as Sarlon Pty Ltd) [2005] NSWCA 379
HEARING DATE(S): 31/10/05
JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2005JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Campbell AJA at 2; Brereton J at 59
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - occupier's liability - injury sustained by employee of specialised independent contractor - whether occupier had reasonably responded to risk of harm that existed - whether occupier had sufficient relevant knowledge of risk for imposition of a duty to warn - whether occupier entitled to rely solely on specialised independent contractor in safeguarding employees from defects in premises in contractor's area of expertise - Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission applied. D
CASES CITED: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Bates v Parker [1953] 2 QB 231
Bond v SA Railway Commissioners (1923) 33 CLR 273
Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952] 1 KB 141
Edmonds v Commonwealth (1961) 61 SR (NSW) 527
Felk Industries Pty Ltd v Mallet [2005] NSWCA 111
Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
London Graving Dock Ltd v Horton [1951] AC 737
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 156 CLR 7
Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65
Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40PARTIES: Nathan Davis (Appellant)
Nolras Pty Ltd (previously known as Sarlon Pty Ltd) (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41021/04
COUNSEL: S Norton SC/M Fraser (Appellant)
G Parker (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Bryden's Law Office (Appellant)
Ebsworth & Ebsworth (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 1188/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rein DCJ
CA 41021/04
DC 1188/03IPP JA
M W CAMPBELL AJA
BRERETON JFriday 16 December 2005
1 IPP JA:
Mr Davis’s claim and his appeal
2 This appeal concerns the liability of an occupier for injuries sustained by an employee of a specialist independent contractor who was injured while working on the occupier’s premises.
3 The injured worker is the appellant, Mr Nathan Davis. His employer at the time was Pallet Packing Supply Company (“PPSC”), referred to in the evidence as Vertex. Part of PPSC’s business was the installation, maintenance and removal of pallet racking systems in factories and warehouses.
4 Mr Davis was injured while he was working for PPSC at a factory owned by the respondent, Nolras Pty Ltd. He contends that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Nolras. He brought a claim against Nolras for the damages he suffered in consequence of those injuries, but Rein DCJ dismissed it. Mr Davis appeals against the dismissal of his claim.
The circumstances under which Mr Davis was injured
5 Nolras was a manufacturer of shade cloth. It stored the shade cloth in racking systems in its factory.…
Continue reading Davis v Nolras Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Davis v Nolras Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 379
- Case
- [2005] NSWCA 379
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the occupier had discharged its duty of care to the plaintiff by reasonably responding to the risk of harm, and whether the occupier possessed sufficient knowledge of the specific risk to warrant a duty to warn. A further question was whether the occupier was entitled to rely exclusively on the specialised independent contractor to safeguard its employees from defects falling within the contractor's area of expertise.
The Court of Appeal applied the principles established in *Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission*. The Court reasoned that an occupier's duty of care does not necessarily extend to inspecting for and rectifying defects that fall within the specialised knowledge and responsibility of an independent contractor engaged to perform work on the premises. The occupier was entitled to rely on the contractor to identify and address risks within its domain, provided the occupier had no specific knowledge of the defect or the contractor's inadequacy. The Court found that the occupier had not breached its duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
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.