Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a workplace injury sustained by a worker while unloading a pantechnicon. The worker was employed by the second respondent, and the vehicle had been packed by the first respondent prior to its departure. The primary judge had found the first respondent negligent, a finding not challenged on appeal. The worker, however, challenged the finding of negligence against their employer, the second respondent. The central dispute on appeal revolved around the apportionment of responsibility between the two respondents and the implications for contribution orders.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had correctly apportioned responsibility between the first and second respondents, particularly in light of the predominant responsibility resting with the first respondent for failing to properly secure the load. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the burden of costs ordered against the first respondent in favour of the worker should have been viewed as subject to contribution from the second respondent employer, and whether legislative provisions precluding costs orders as between employer and employee indirectly affected the first respondent's liability for contribution.

The court reasoned that the primary judge had erred in holding the respondents equally responsible, finding that the predominant responsibility for the injury lay with the first respondent. The court applied principles of contribution between tortfeasors, noting that the failure to properly secure the load was the primary cause of the accident. The court also considered the impact of statutory provisions that limit or preclude costs orders between an employer and employee, concluding that these provisions should not prevent the first respondent from seeking contribution from the second respondent.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the cross-appeal was dismissed. The court directed that the parties submit agreed minutes of orders to vary the original orders, reflecting a 75 per cent / 25 per cent apportionment of responsibility between the first and second respondents respectively. The costs of the appeal were reserved for future decision, with parties directed to exchange written submissions on the matter. The cross-respondents were awarded their costs of the cross-appeal against the cross-appellant.