Jancevski v WR Engineering Pty Ltd - [2018] ACTCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Jancevski v WR Engineering Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2018] ACTCA 34
Hearing Date:	6 August 2018
DecisionDate:	24 August 2018
ReasonsDate:	24 August 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ, Elkaim and Charlesworth JJ
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE - Standard of Care – standard owed by employer to employee – standard turning on facts of the particular case – whether employer provided employee with adequate training and warning in respect of a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury – adequate training provided.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 40, 42 and 43
Cases Cited:	Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 79 ALJR 839 Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd (1970) 124 CLR 192 Deal v Father Pius Kodakkathanath [2016] HCA 31; 258 CLR 281 Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872 Jancevski v WR Engineering ATF WR Engineering Trust [2016] ACTMC 8 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; 234 CLR 330 Smith v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1957) 97 CLR 337 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422 Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9; 208 CLR 460 WR Engineering Pty Ltd ATF WR Engineering Trust v Nickola Jancevski [2017] ACTSC 202 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Parties:	Nickola Jancevski (Appellant) WR Engineering Pty Ltd ATF WR Engineering Trust (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr I Roberts SC (Appellant) Mr A Muller (Appellant) Mr K Rewell SC (Respondent)
Solicitors Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Appellant) Moray and Agnew (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 35 of 2017
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Before: Ashford AJ Date of Decision: 21 July 2017 Case Title: WR Engineering Pty Ltd ATF WR Engineering Trust v Nickola Jancevski Citation: [2017] ACTSC 202

THE COURT:

The respondent, WR Engineering Pty Ltd (WR), operates a business in the Australian Capital Territory for the supply and installation of residential and commercial garage doors. In 2012, the appellant, Mr Jancevksi, was employed by WR as a tradesperson.

About nine weeks after his employment commenced, Mr Jancevski undertook rectification works on a garage door he had previously installed in Chapman. The door mechanism included two highly tensioned springs anchored to the garage wall by a bracket. When Mr Jancevski loosened two of the bolts from the bracket, the considerable tension in the springs caused the bracket to break away from the wall. The bracket struck Mr Jancevksi, causing an injury to his left hand.

Mr Jancevski made a successful claim for damages against WR under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) (the Act). Relevantly, the trial Magistrate found that WR had breached its duty of care by failing to provide Mr Jancevski with adequate training in respect of the risks associated with the energy stored in the springs: Jancevski v WR…

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 Jancevski v WR Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jancevski v WR Engineering Pty Ltd [2018] ACTCA 34
Case: [2018] ACTCA 34
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales heard an appeal concerning a claim for damages for negligence brought by an employee, Mr. Jancevski, against his employer, WR Engineering Pty Ltd. Mr. Jancevski alleged that his employer had failed to provide him with adequate training and warnings regarding a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of injury associated with his employment.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether WR Engineering Pty Ltd had breached its duty of care to Mr. Jancevski by failing to provide adequate training and warnings concerning the risks inherent in his work. This required the Court to consider the standard of care owed by an employer to an employee, and whether that standard had been met in the specific circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the employer had indeed provided adequate training to Mr. Jancevski. The standard of care owed by an employer is determined by the facts of the particular case, and in this instance, the Court was satisfied that the training provided was sufficient to address the foreseeable risks. Consequently, the Court concluded that WR Engineering Pty Ltd had not breached its duty of care. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.