Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited - [2004] NSWSC 930

CITATION: Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited & anor [2004] NSWSC 930

HEARING DATE(S): 03/05/2004 - 07/05/2004, 10/05/2004 - 11/05/2004, 13/05/2004 - 14/05/2004.

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Hislop J

DECISION: 1. (a) verdict for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $ 1,615,090.84; (b) judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,361,521.02; (c) verdict and judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff; (d) verdict and judgment for the second defendant on the first defendant's cross claim against it; (e) verdict and judgment for the first defendant on the second defendant's cross claim against it; 2. The first defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff; 3. The plaintiff to pay the costs of the second defendant, but to have a Bullock order against the first defendant in respect of those costs; 4. The first defendant to pay the costs of the second defendant in respect of both cross claims; 5. The parties to have liberty to apply in respect of costs and/or interest within 10 days.

CATCHWORDS: Employer's liability - Grain auger - Negligence - Breach of statutory duty - Liability of equipment installer - Contributory negligence - Damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Factories, Shops and Industries Act 1962 - s 27
Workers Compensation Act 1987 - s 151N

CASES CITED: Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649
Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Michael Realty Pty Limited v Carr (1975) 2 NSWLR 812
Proctor and Gamble Pty Limited v Australian Slatwall Industries Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 398
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319
Suosaari v Steinhardt [1989] 2 Qd R 477
Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402 at 412
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1962 - 1963) 110 CLR 74
Williams v Grain Handling Authority of NSW (NSWSC 21 October 1986 unreported)
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Limited v CDG Pty Limited (2004) 78 ALJR 628

PARTIES :
Daniel Michael Hanlon - Plaintiff
Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited - First Defendant
JR Cleverdon Holdings Pty Limited - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20208/00

COUNSEL: Mr P Blacket SC with Mr W Walsh - Plaintiff
Mr D Feller SC with Mr M Perry - First Defendant
Mr M Williams SC with Mr R Cheney - Second Defendant

SOLICITORS: Turner Freeman - Plaintiff
Vardanega Roberts - First Defendant
Riley Gray-Spencer - Second Defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Hislop J

8 October 2004

20208/00 Daniel Michael Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited & anor

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 The first defendant carried on business as a buyer and seller of grain at premises at Queen Street, Junee. The grain was stored by it at the premises. The premises consisted, relevantly, of offices, a weighbridge and a number of silos on one side of the street…

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 Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited 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: [2004] NSWSC 930
Decision Date: 8 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited revolves around an incident where the plaintiff, Hanlon, suffered injuries while operating a grain auger installed by the defendant, Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited. The plaintiff sought damages for the injuries, alleging that the defendant was negligent in the installation of the equipment and breached statutory duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident and that they were not liable for the injuries sustained.

The court had to determine whether Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited was negligent in the installation of the grain auger, breached statutory duties, and whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence affected the defendant's liability. The court also had to consider the extent of the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court found that Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited was negligent in the installation of the grain auger, which led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court held that the defendant breached statutory duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The court found that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant of liability but reduced the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the contributory negligence. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the injuries sustained, but the amount was reduced by the percentage of contributory negligence.

The court ordered Hanlon Enterprises Pty Limited to pay damages to the plaintiff, reduced by the percentage of contributory negligence. The court also ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs of the proceeding. The court found that the defendant's negligence was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the harm suffered. The court held that the defendant's breach of statutory duties contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the breach. The court found that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant of liability but reduced the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs of the proceeding.

Orders