Fairfield City Council v Coupe, a R Maher T/as a R Maher Services & M L Maher T/as a R Maher Services

This case involved an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerning a dispute over liability for injuries sustained by a worker. The parties were Fairfield City Council (the appellant) and A R Maher T/as A R Maher Services & M L Maher T/as A R Maher Services (the employer, referred to as the 2nd and 3rd respondents), with the injured worker being the 1st respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around the employer's alleged breach of a non-delegable duty of care owed to its employee, and the apportionment of liability between the employer and the Council, which was alleged to have also contributed to the worker's injuries.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the task that led to the worker's injury fell within the scope of his employment, thereby engaging the employer's non-delegable duty of care. Furthermore, the court was required to determine the extent to which liability for the worker's damages should be apportioned between the Council and the employer, considering their respective roles in causing the injury. The court also had to consider the effect of any contractual indemnity provisions on tortious liability, although this aspect was not ultimately determinative of the outcome.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, upheld the appeal and set aside the liability orders made by the trial judge. The court found that both the Council and the employer were liable to the worker. The reasoning applied was that the Council bore a greater degree of responsibility for the worker's injuries, and therefore, liability for the worker's damages was apportioned on a 75/25 basis, with the Council being held 75% at fault and the employer 25% at fault. The assessment of damages made by the trial judge was not challenged and therefore stood.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Council and the employer were jointly liable to pay the worker's costs of the trial. The employer was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the appeal and was made eligible for a Suitor's Fund Certificate. The Council was ordered to pay the worker's costs of the appeal.