Legal Research
Cases
Delta Corporation Ltd v DAVIES

Delta Corporation Ltd v DAVIES

Link copied

Case Copied 15 May 2002 75 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: DELTA CORPORATION LTD -v- DAVIES [2002] WASCA 125

CORAM: MURRAY J
PARKER J
HASLUCK J

HEARD: 11 DECEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 15 MAY 2002

FILE NO/S: FUL 135 of 2001

BETWEEN: DELTA CORPORATION LTD
Appellant
AND
MARK ANTHONY DAVIES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Negligence - Employer and Employee - Duty of care - Breach of Duty - Issue of causation - Distinction between factual causation and responsibility for consequences in law - Employee injured while using wire brush to clean trough - Factual issue as to whether wire bristles entered his body on nominated day as alleged - Issue concerning burden of proof - Claim for aggravated damages disallowed - Evaluation of loss of earning capacity

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 86, s 93D

Result:

Appeal allowed
Award of damages reduced to the sum of $715,184.60
Cross Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D R Clyne
Respondent: Mr N J Mullany

Solicitors:

Appellant: Civitella Smith
Respondent: James McManus & Associates

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

A B v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507
Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Bergman v Haertsch [2000] NSWSC 528
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Calder v Boyne Smelters Ltd [1991] 1 Qd R 325
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 211
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234
Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145
Goodwin v Nominal Defendant (1979) 54 ALJR 84
Henville v Walker (2001) 182 ALR 37
Hunter Area Health Service v Marchlewski (2000) 51 NSWLR 268
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E&MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
O'Reilly v Hausler (1987) 6 MVR 344
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 178 ALR 577
State Government Insurance Commission v Hitchcock, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970089; 11 March 1997
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588
Transport Industries Insurance Co Ltd v Longmuir [1997] 1 VR 125
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Villasevil v Pickering (2001) 24 WAR 167

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Agbaba v Witter (1977) 14 ALR 187
Betts v Whittingslowe (1945) 71 CLR 637
Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Tort Rep 81-043
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 62 ALR 53
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1; 74 ALR 188
Naxakis…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Delta Corporation Ltd v DAVIES and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] WASCA 125
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Delta Corporation Ltd commenced proceedings against its former employee, Davies, in the Federal Circuit Court. The case involved a dispute regarding the employer's liability for damages following an injury Davies sustained while using a wire brush to clean a trough. The central issue was whether the employer breached its duty of care, leading to Davies' injury. The court had to determine whether the employer was negligent and whether the injury was caused by the employer's breach.

The primary legal issues revolved around the employer's duty of care, the existence of a breach of that duty, and whether the breach caused the injury. A significant aspect of the case was the distinction between factual causation and the legal responsibility for consequences. The court also needed to address the burden of proof concerning the factual causation and the evaluation of Davies' loss of earning capacity. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether there were grounds for aggravated damages.

The court found that there was no breach of the employer's duty of care. The employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, including providing safety equipment and training. The court concluded that the factual causation was not established as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the wire bristles entered Davies' body on the day in question. The court also found that the burden of proof did not lie with the employer to disprove the causation. Additionally, the claim for aggravated damages was disallowed as there was no evidence of deliberate or reckless misconduct by the employer. The court evaluated Davies' loss of earning capacity and awarded damages based on the findings.

Orders