Scaffolding and Lifts (N.S.W.)—Power to make regulations relating to safeguards and measures to be taken for securing safety and health of workers—Validity of regulations—Sufficiency of specification of manner of carrying out work or measures to be taken—Scaffolding and Lifts Act, 1912-1960 (N.S.W.), s. 22 (2) (g) (v)*—Scaffolding and Lifts Regulations, reg. 73 (1) (2) (3).** Precedents—Decision of High Court—Binding force on Supreme Court of a State—Apparent inconsistency with later reasoning of Privy Council.

Decisions

November 4.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales upholding demurrers to the second, third and fourth counts of a declaration, such counts being founded respectively upon breaches of regs. 73 (1), 73 (2) and 73 (3) of the Scaffolding and Lifts Regulations (the Regulations) made pursuant to s. 22 of the Scaffolding and Lifts Act, 1912 (N.S.W.), as amended (the Act). (at p204)

2. On the hearing of the demurrers before the Court of Appeal certain amendments to the three counts were deemed to have been made, the effect of which was to insert the whole of the opening words of reg. 73 in the inducement of each count. In addition, the second count was deemed to be amended by the insertion of the particular requirement of reg. 86 (3) (b). But no actual amendments were made, itself a most unsatisfactory course to be adopted. Before this Court, upon it being pointed out that no causation was alleged between the breach of the regulations assigned in the respective counts and the damage claimed to have been suffered, a further amendment by consent was made. At the instance of this Court the fully amended counts were reduced to form and placed with the materials upon which this appeal must be decided. The laxity in pleading which has thus been exhibited and tolerated has merely to be noticed to be condemned. The counts upon which this Court is now asked to rule are as follows:

"2. And for a second count the plaintiff sues the defendant for that before and at the time of the grievances hereinafter alleged and at all material times the defendant was carrying out certain building work within the meaning of the Scaffolding and Lifts Act in an area in which the said Act had effect and the defendant employed the plaintiff to work at the said building work which said building work could not be done safely by the plaintiff standing on permanent or solid construction and such work could not be done safely from ladders constructed in conformity with the provisions of the Regulations made pursuant to the said Act and there was in full force and effect a certain regulation under the said Act to wit reg. 73…

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.

Continue reading Jacob v Utah Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jacob v Utah Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 67
Case: [1966] HCA 67
Decision Date: 4 November 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jacob v Utah Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the interpretation of a contract for the supply of labour and services. The appellant, Mr. Jacob, had entered into an agreement with the respondent, Utah Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd, for the provision of his services. A dispute arose regarding the terms of this agreement, specifically concerning the respondent's obligations and the appellant's entitlements.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had breached the contract by failing to provide certain benefits or payments that the appellant contended were due to him under the agreement. This required the Court to construe the specific clauses of the contract to ascertain the parties' intentions and the scope of their respective obligations. The Court also had to consider whether any implied terms could be read into the contract in the circumstances.

The High Court's reasoning focused on a close examination of the contractual language. The majority of the Court found that the express terms of the agreement did not impose the obligations that the appellant sought to enforce. They held that the contract, as written, did not contemplate the provision of the specific benefits or payments in question, and that no implied term could be justified to alter the clear meaning of the express provisions. The Court applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used by the parties.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the decision of the lower court.

Orders