Ipec Holdings Ltd v Siemers - [1991] TASSC 99

93/1991
List "A"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)

CITATION: Ipec Holdings Ltd v Siemers [1991] TASSC 99; A93/1991

PARTIES:  IPEC HOLDINGS LTD
  v
  SIEMERS, Sue

FILE NO/S: FCA 105/1990
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Siemers v Ipec Holdings Ltd B68/1990

DELIVERED ON:  5 November 1991
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Crawford and Zeeman JJ

Judgment Number: A93/1991
Number of paragraphs: 46

Serial No 93/1991
List "A"
File No FCA 105/1990

IPEC HOLDINGS LTD v SUE SIEMERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
ZEEMAN J
5 November 1991

Order of the Court

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Serial No 93/1991
List "A"
File No FCA 105/1990

IPEC HOLDINGS LTD v SUE SIEMERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD J
5 November 1991

I am in complete agreement with the reasons for judgment of Zeeman J and the order he proposes.

I would add that initially, I was of the view that the sum of $30,000.00 attributed to pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life was so high that it had led to error in the final judgment sum. This Court has traditionally taken a conservative approach in the assessment of an appropriate sum under this head of detriment. See Chenery v Cole [1985] Tas R (NC) 175. On the facts as found by the learned trial judge $30,000.00 is, at the least, at the very top end of the range of figures within which the discretion could properly be exercised. However, the ultimate question on this issue is whether, in the absence of specific error, the judgment sum of $217,023.27 is so disproportionate to the loss and injury sustained that it warrants appellate intervention. I agree with the opinion of Zeeman J that the sums assessed as compensation for lost past and future earning capacity could have been higher and this must be taken into account on a consideration of this issue as well as the sum assessed for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life. Doing this leads me to the conclusion that the judgment sum cannot be categorised as a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
File No FCA 105/1990

IPEC HOLDINGS LTD v SUE SIEMERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

CRAWFORD J
5 November 1991

I agree that the appeal and cross–appeal should be dismissed for the reasons stated by Zeeman J I have nothing I wish to add.
File No FCA 105/1990

IPEC HOLDINGS LTD v SUE SIEMERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

ZEEMAN J
5 November 1991

The respondent was employed by the appellant as a bar attendant at the Wrest Point Hotel Casino. The appellant required that the respondent use a particular staff entrance in order to gain access to her place of work. A roadway ran along the southern side of the casino building from a point adjacent to the main entrance to a lower level where the staff entrance was located. During the course of the trial this roadway appears to have been referred to as a "ramp"…

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 Ipec Holdings Ltd v Siemers 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: [1991] TASSC 99
Decision Date: 5 November 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ipec Holdings Ltd v Siemers was an appeal against a judgment given by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The case involved a claim by the respondent, Sue Siemers, against the appellant, Ipec Holdings Ltd, for damages arising from an injury she sustained while employed as a bar attendant at the Wrest Point Hotel Casino. Siemers claimed that her fall on the casino's staff ramp was due to the negligence of the appellant, who in turn alleged contributory negligence on the part of Siemers. The trial judge found both parties negligent, apportioning liability 80% to the appellant and 20% to Siemers. The appeal challenged the findings of negligence and the assessment of damages. The Full Court upheld the trial judge's findings, dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal. The Court found that the appellant was negligent in not taking reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury, despite being aware of complaints about the ramp's condition. The Court also found Siemers' contributory negligence to be justified, as she failed to use the handrail available to her. The Court concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable, considering the extent of Siemers' injuries and their impact on her life.

Orders