Gray v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd; Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Chandler Macleod Group Ltd

In *Gray v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd; Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Chandler Macleod Group Ltd*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals arising from a primary judge's decision concerning a worker's injury sustained on Coles' premises. The worker, Ms. Gray, had sued Coles for negligence. Coles, in turn, had filed a cross-claim against Chandler Macleod Group Ltd, the labour-hire company that had engaged Ms. Gray, seeking damages and indemnity under their labour-hire agreement. The primary judge had found Coles not liable to Ms. Gray and had also dismissed Coles' cross-claim against Chandler Macleod.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that Coles had not breached its duty of care to Ms. Gray. Specifically, the appeal challenged the primary judge's factual findings that the reasonable precautions pleaded by Ms. Gray would not have prevented her injury. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing Coles' cross-claim, which alleged that the labour-hire agreement entitled Coles to damages or indemnity from Chandler Macleod. The admissibility of a new expert report tendered by Ms. Gray at the hearing was also a point of contention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the primary judge's decision. Regarding the negligence claim, the Court upheld the primary judge's factual findings that the proposed precautions would not have averted the risk of harm to Ms. Gray. The Court found no basis to interfere with these findings of fact. Similarly, the Court found no error in the primary judge's construction of the labour-hire agreement, concluding that it did not entitle Coles to the damages or indemnity it sought from Chandler Macleod. The Court also affirmed the primary judge's discretionary decision to exclude the new expert report, finding no error in its exercise.

Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.