Gifford & Ors v Strang Patrick Stevedoring - [2002] HCATrans 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S111 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
DARREN GIFFORD
Appellant
and
STRANG PATRICK STEVEDORING PTY LIMITED
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S112 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
KELLY GIFFORD
Appellant
and
STRANG PATRICK STEVEDORING PTY LIMITED
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S113 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
MATTHEW GIFFORD
Appellant
and
STRANG PATRICK STEVEDORING PTY LIMITED
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2002, AT 10.20 AM

__________________

MR B.J. GROSS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR D.E. BARAN for the appellant. (instructed by G.H. Healey & Co with Graeme R. Jensen & Co)

MR J.D. HISLOP, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR T.F. McKENZIE, for the respondent. (instructed by Gillis Delaney Brown)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Gross.

MR GROSS: Your Honours, it was accepted by the trial judge and the New South Wales Court of Appeal and it seems common ground at both hearings that on 14 June 1990 shortly after the deceased died in a horrific work accident at 4 pm caused by the defendant employer’s negligence, each of the three appellants who were then teenage children with close ties of love and affection with their father received on that evening the distressing and, at least in a lay sense, shocking news of the accident and death at their home at Waterloo. They were emotionally devastated by the news but did not thereafter view the deceased’s body as they were discouraged from doing so because of the very disfiguring injuries inflicted by a large forklift truck.

Your Honours, the trial judge found that the deceased had “a close and loving relationship with the children” – that is at page 419 – a finding which the Court of Appeal repeated at 463. The trial judge found it was an “horrific” accident at 419, a finding which the Court of Appeal repeated at 464. The trial judge found that the three children “were understandably shocked and distressed at the news” – at 420 – a finding which the Court of Appeal repeated at 464.

The issue before the trial judge was whether the plaintiffs had suffered compensable nervous shock. The trial judge disposed of the matter solely by reference to section 4(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The Court of Appeal disposed of the matter on the basis there was no duty of care owed by the defendant.

Your Honours, it is acknowledged that at trial there was a live issue between the appellants and the respondent as to whether there was a psychiatric injury suffered by the three plaintiffs of the type which the law recognise. Whether one is treating…

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 Gifford & Ors v Strang Patrick Stevedoring 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] HCATrans 380
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal in *Gifford & Ors v Strang Patrick Stevedoring*. The dispute concerned the liability of the respondent stevedoring company for the nervous shock and psychiatric injury suffered by the appellants, who were the dependants of a deceased waterside worker. The worker died in a workplace accident due to the negligence of the respondent. The appellants claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they sustained upon learning of the accident and its fatal consequences.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellants to prevent them from suffering psychiatric injury as a result of the deceased's death. This involved determining whether the appellants were within the class of persons to whom the respondent owed a duty of care, and if so, whether the harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. The court also considered the application of the principles established in *Jaensch v Coffey* regarding the foreseeability of psychiatric injury in cases of nervous shock.

The High Court, by majority, held that the respondent did owe a duty of care to the appellants. The court reasoned that the relationship between the employer and the employee, and by extension the employer's duty to ensure the safety of its employees, created a foreseeable risk of harm to the employee's close family members in the event of a fatal accident. The court found that the psychiatric injury suffered by the appellants was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the respondent's negligence, particularly given the nature of the employment and the close familial relationships. The principles of foreseeability and proximity, as developed in negligence law, were applied to establish the existence of the duty of care.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for assessment of damages.

Orders