Dial a Tow Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell

Dial a Tow Australia Pty Ltd (DAT) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision concerning its alleged failure to ensure the health and safety of its employees. The dispute arose from the death of an employee, Mr Ravlich, who was caught in a crush zone on a newly designed tilt tray tow truck leased by DAT. The core of the prosecution's case was that DAT had failed to install a pressure-sensitive device, which it was argued was a reasonably practicable measure to prevent such a fatality.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the majority judges of the appeal bench provided adequate reasons for their decision, particularly in relation to the interpretation and application of the term "reasonably practicable." DAT contended that the majority failed to address or adequately address several key arguments raised on appeal, including the prosecution's alleged failure to prove the practicability of the engineering measure in question, the absence of evidence of industry practice, and the appropriateness of seeking advice from the truck's manufacturer, AHRNS Handling Equipment Ltd.

The Full Court acknowledged the well-established principle that a judicial tribunal is required to expose its reasoning on points critical to the contest between the parties, with the extent of reasons depending on the specific case. The Court noted that while not every detail of reasoning needs to be articulated, it is essential to explain how critical points were resolved. The Court observed an overlap between DAT's complaints regarding the adequacy of reasons and issues previously discussed concerning the interpretation of "reasonably practicable." Specifically, the Court considered DAT's argument that the prosecution had not proven the practicability of the proposed engineering measure, especially in the absence of evidence of industry standards or a recommendation from the manufacturer.

The Full Court answered the third question of law in the negative, concluding that the majority judges did not provide adequate reasons for their decision. Consequently, Ground 3 of the appeal was dismissed.