JONES -v- SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2007] WADC 167

Link to Appeal :

[2008] WASCA 121

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 167
Case No:	CIV:2833/2000	Heard:	20-24 & 27 AUGUST 2007
Coram:	MULLER DCJ	Delivered:	8/11/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	41	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim against defendant allowed Defendant's claim against third party dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY IVAN EDWARD JONES SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD DON PATRICK BINGHAM
Catchwords:	Negligence Auto electrician injured while repairing compressor motor on road tanker Piping system fitted with a stop valve but no automatic release valve Pipe separated under pressure and struck plaintiff on head Tanker purchased by defendant from third party Tanker operated by Wesfarmers to transport defendant's product Whether defendant owed plaintiff duty of care Failure by defendant to have system inspected by qualified and competent person either at time of purchase or at time tanker used by Wesfarmers Whether third party liable to indemnify defendant Alleged breach of implied term by third party Whether third party liable to make contribution Assessment of plaintiff's damages
Legislation:	Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984
Case References:	Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 41 ALR 367 Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 App Cas 740 Dependable Motors Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Ashford (1959) 101 CLR 265 Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 Kato Works Co Ltd v Benz & Ors [1999] WASCA 165 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 Laundess v Laundess (1994) 20 MVR 156 Lipman v Clendinnen (1932) 46 CLR 550 McPherson's Ltd v Eaton & Ors (2005) NSWLR 187 Pesl Pty Ltd v Ray Smith Tractors Pty Ltd (2007) NSWCA 74 Rivett Arboricultural and Waste Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Evans (2007) SASC 108 Stevens v Brodribb Saw Milling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74 Yun Hee Choi v City of Sydney Council (2007) NSWSC 65

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : JONES -v- SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2007] WADC 167 CORAM : MULLER DCJ HEARD : 20-24 & 27 AUGUST 2007 DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2833 of 2000 BETWEEN : BRADLEY IVAN EDWARD JONES

Plaintiff

AND

SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

Defendant

DON PATRICK BINGHAM

Third Party

Catchwords:

Negligence - Auto electrician injured while repairing compressor motor on road tanker - Piping system fitted with a stop valve but no automatic release valve - Pipe separated under pressure and struck plaintiff on head - Tanker purchased by defendant from third party - Tanker operated by Wesfarmers to transport defendant's product - Whether defendant owed plaintiff duty of care - Failure by defendant to have system inspected by qualified and competent person either at time of purchase or at time tanker used by Wesfarmers - Whether third party liable…

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 Jones v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd 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: [2007] WADC 167
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones sued SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd for injuries sustained while repairing a compressor motor on a road tanker. The incident occurred when a piping system on the tanker separated under pressure, striking the plaintiff on the head. The plaintiff was an auto electrician working for a company contracted by Wesfarmers to transport SNF's products. The tanker had been purchased by SNF from a third party and had a stop valve but lacked an automatic release valve. The court was tasked with determining whether SNF owed the plaintiff a duty of care, whether SNF had failed to have the system inspected by a qualified person, and if SNF could be indemnified by the third party who sold the tanker. The court also had to consider if the third party had breached any implied terms and if they were liable to contribute to the plaintiff's damages.

The court found that SNF owed the plaintiff a duty of care and had failed to have the system inspected by a qualified person, either at the time of purchase or when the tanker was used by Wesfarmers. The court held that the absence of an automatic release valve, despite the presence of a stop valve, constituted a significant risk that SNF should have addressed. The court dismissed SNF's claim against the third party for indemnity, ruling that the third party had not breached any implied terms in the sale of the tanker. The court held that the third party was not liable to make a contribution to the plaintiff's damages.

The court allowed the plaintiff's claim against SNF and dismissed SNF's claim against the third party. The court assessed the plaintiff's damages and ordered SNF to compensate the plaintiff accordingly. The court did not make any orders regarding the third party's liability to contribute to the plaintiff's damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim against defendant allowed

Defendant's claim against third party 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.