Garstang v Cedenco - [2002] NSWSC 144

CITATION: Garstang v Cedenco [2002] NSWSC 144

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20581/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 13 and 14 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 March 2002

PARTIES :

Sean William Garstang
(Plaintiff)
Cedenco JV Australia Limited t/as Cedenco Australia
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

COUNSEL :
Mr Cranitch SC with
Mr I Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Mr D G T Nock SC
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Commins Hendriks
Wagga Wagga
(Plaintiff)
Hunt & Hunt
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Personal injury - breach of contract - damages

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers' Compensation Act 1987 - s 151E(3)

CASES CITED: John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 172 ALR 625; (2000) 74 ALJR 1109; 203 CLR 503
Bonython v The Commonwealth [1950] 81 CLR 486
Re United Railways of Havana and Regala Warehouses Limited (1960) 1 Ch 52
Mendelson-Zeller Co Inc v T & C Providores Pty Limited (1981) 1 NSWLR 366
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337

DECISION: (1) The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $301,279.00; (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as assessed or agreed.

- 17 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

TUESDAY, 12 MARCH 2002

CEDENCO JV AUSTRALIA LIMITED

t/as CEDENCO AUSTRALIA

- damages)

1 MASTER: The plaintiff seeks damages for a personal injury sustained in an accident that occurred during the course of his employment with the defendant. The accident occurred on 16 February 1998 at a tomato processing plant in Echuca, Victoria. There is no claim in tort. The claim is for breach of contract. Later, during the hearing the defendant admitted that it breached the terms of the contract.

Plaintiff’s background

2 The plaintiff was born on 3 February 1971. He is now a relatively young man of 31 years of age. The accident occurred when the plaintiff was 28 years of age. From 1976 until 1979 he attended Wideview public school, Berowra Heights. In 1979 the plaintiff moved to Wagga Wagga with his family and he attended Lake Albert public school until 1983. In 1984 the plaintiff commenced high school at Korringal high school. In 1985 the plaintiff fractured the third metacarpal of his right hand in a fight with some “mates”. He left school in early 1988 while in Year 11 to commence employment. While in high school the plaintiff commenced using marijuana and has apparently used it on a regular basis in recent times.

4 In 1994 the plaintiff met Tammy and commenced living with her. She had an older child. On 17 September 1994 their son Jake was born. On 18 May 1997 the plaintiff’s daughter Tahlia was born. In mid 1998, after his wife left with their children, the plaintiff commenced using heroin. After about a year, the plaintiff saw his local general practitioner and underwent the methadone programme. After 16 months (about March 2001) of reducing the…

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.

Continue reading Garstang v Cedenco

Details

AGLC: Garstang v Cedenco [2002] NSWSC 144
Case: [2002] NSWSC 144
Decision Date: 12 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garstang v Cedenco was before the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Garstang, sought damages for personal injuries sustained during an incident at the defendant’s premises. Garstang claimed that Cedenco, a company that provides cleaning services, was negligent in the maintenance of the premises and breached their contractual obligations, leading to the injuries. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Cedenco was indeed in breach of their contractual obligations and whether such a breach directly resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to consider the nature and extent of the damages that should be awarded if the breach was established.

The court examined the terms of the contract between the parties, focusing on the duties assigned to Cedenco regarding the maintenance and safety of the premises. It was critical to ascertain whether these duties were adequately fulfilled and if the injuries could be traced directly to a failure in these duties. The court considered expert evidence on the conditions of the premises and the specific circumstances of the incident. It assessed whether Cedenco’s actions or inactions fell below the standard expected under the contract, thereby constituting a breach. Furthermore, the court looked into whether such a breach was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries, as claimed.

After evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that Cedenco had indeed breached their contractual obligations by failing to maintain a safe environment as required. The court found that this breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Consequently, Cedenco was held liable for the damages incurred by Garstang. The court detailed the extent of the injuries and the resultant losses, taking into account both the immediate medical costs and the long-term impact on Garstang's life. The court ordered Cedenco to compensate Garstang for the full amount of the assessed damages.

Orders