Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) - [2023] NSWSC 1076

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 1076
Hearing dates: 11-14 October 2022;
18-19 October 2022
Date of orders: 28 September 2023
Decision date: 28 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [304]

Catchwords:
CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURY – Where the plaintiff suffered injury on Nauru – Law of Nauru applicable – English common law as at 1968 – Where English common law does not allow claims for gratuitous domestic care – Whether Australian common law applies to allow such claims – Claim disallowed – Judgment against both defendants – assessment of damages at common law

Legislation Cited:
Custom and Adopted Laws Act 1971 (Nauru)
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 (UK)

Cases Cited:
Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1423
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Halstead & Ors v Batiouk [2011] NRSC 11

Texts Cited:
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd ed

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Farmer (P)
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (D1)
Wilson Security Pty Ltd (D2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Cranitch SC with Mr Woods (P)
Mr D Priestley SC (D1)
Mr W Reynolds (D2)
Solicitors:
SommervilleLaundryLomax (P)
Gilchrist Connell (D1)
JLN Corporate Services Pty Ltd (D2)

File Number(s): 2018/00175460
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

On 6 November 2016, the plaintiff, Mr William Farmer, was injured when he fell down a flight of stairs at a staff accommodation block at the Regional Processing Centre situated on Nauru (the “RPC”). The RPC was managed, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia by the first defendant, Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Broadspectrum”). At the time, the plaintiff was employed to work at the RPC by the second defendant, Wilson Security Pty Ltd (“Wilson Security”), as a Safety and Security Consultant.
The plaintiff brings these proceedings against the two defendants, claiming damages for his personal injury.
In the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff pleads that his claim is to be determined in accordance with the substantive law of the Republic of Nauru (“Nauru”). He pleads his claim as a common law claim for damages for negligence or breach of contract.

Overview

As against Broadspectrum, the plaintiff pleads that it provided management services pursuant to a contract with the Commonwealth of Australia which included the management of Block E at the RPC on Nauru. He pleads that Broadspectrum was responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and performing repair works at the premises. He alleges that Broadspectrum was negligent because it wrongfully permitted the “non-slip strip” on the edge of the top step to be absent from the generally U-shaped aluminium or metal frame (“U frame”), and failed to ensure that the premises, including the staircase, were inspected at reasonable intervals so as to ensure that the steps were safe. The plaintiff submitted that the steps were not safe because of the absence of the non-slip strip ordinarily inserted into the U frame at the top of the steps.
As…

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 Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) 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: [2023] NSWSC 1076
Decision Date: 28 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) involved the plaintiff, Farmer, who suffered injuries on Nauru and subsequently brought an action against Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd and others. The primary issue was the applicability of Australian common law to the claim, particularly regarding claims for gratuitous domestic care, which were not recognised under English common law as it stood in 1968. The court was tasked with determining whether Australian common law could be applied to allow such claims, given that the injury occurred in Nauru, where the local law was not specified but was inferred to be aligned with English common law as of 1968.

The court considered whether the law of Australia could be applied to allow claims for gratuitous domestic care, despite the English common law stance. It was noted that the common law of Australia had evolved since 1968, but the court found that the law of Nauru, which was aligned with English common law, did not recognise such claims. The court held that it was not appropriate to apply Australian common law to override the applicable local law of Nauru, as this would have disregarded the specific jurisdictional context and the legal framework in place at the time of the injury.

Ultimately, the court disallowed the claim for gratuitous domestic care under the applicable law of Nauru. The judgment resulted in a decision against both defendants, and the case was remanded for the assessment of damages at common law. The court's reasoning was grounded in the respect for the local legal system of Nauru and the principle of not applying foreign law where it would be inappropriate to do so. This decision underscores the importance of considering the specific legal context in which an injury occurred when determining the applicable law for a claim.

Orders