Juric v Transformex Pty Limited - [2007] NSWDC 229

Reported Decision:
6 DCLR (NSW) 224

District Court

CITATION: Juric v Transformex Pty Limited [2007] NSWDC 229

HEARING DATE(S): 9 - 12 October

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 November 2007

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Goldring DCJ

DECISION: The total damages are $762,102. As the defendant has not agreed to waive any jurisdictional limits on damages, there will accordingly be a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $750,000.

CATCHWORDS: Torts - negligence - occupier - duty to independent contractor working on premises - Interpreter - credit of witness whose first language is not English - Evidence - circumstantial evidence to support finding of negligence - Causation - Civil Liability Act 2002 principles - Damages - domestic assistance future where assistance provided gratuitously in past

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002

CASES CITED: Metcash Trading Limited v Scripcariu [2006] NSWCA 78
Maricic v Dalma Formwork (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor [2006] NSWCA 174
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] 79 ALJR 839
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Teuma v CP & PK Judd Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 166
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245
Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Lolomanaia (2001) 34 MVR 249
Matchan v Lyons (2004) 40 MVR 466

PARTIES: Branimir Juric (Plaintiff)
Transformex Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 4822 of 2005

COUNSEL: Mr C. Heazlewood (Plaintiff)
Mr N. Polin (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff)
Gadens Lawyers (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

Issue

1 This is a claim by the plaintiff for damages to compensate him for injuries he suffered as a result of a fall of about two metres from a pergola, injuring his ankle. This occurred on 19 February 2002. He claims that the defendant, as occupier of the premises, breached a duty of care to ensure that those premises were reasonably safe.

2 The main issue in the case of is whether, on the facts I find, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff. That can be so only if I find that the defendant breached some duty of care which it owed to the plaintiff, and that the breach of duty caused damage.

Plywood

3 The plaintiff claims that at the point where he fell, both his feet were resting on plywood. The defendant says that the only plywood on the site was plywood it had used to construct access walkways, and this was firmly fixed to the rafters. It could not fall. If I find that a loose piece of plywood had been placed at the point where the plaintiff fell, the plaintiff’s case becomes much stronger, given that the defendant’s witnesses’ evidence that the project manager, at least, had been on the site that morning, and had not seen a piece of plywood where it should not have been.

Alternative formulation

4 The plaintiff put forward an alternative basis upon which the defendant could be held liable. That was that he did step directly on to a rafter, which collapsed. This version is…

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 Juric v Transformex Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Juric v Transformex Pty Limited [2007] NSWDC 229
Case: [2007] NSWDC 229
Decision Date: 13 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Juric v Transformex Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Juric, sought damages against the defendant, Transformex, for injuries sustained while working on the defendant's premises as an independent contractor. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the extent of Transformex's duty of care towards Juric and whether Transformex was negligent in the circumstances that led to Juric's injuries. Additionally, the court examined the application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 in assessing liability and damages.

The central legal issues revolved around the scope of Transformex's duty to ensure the safety of an independent contractor on their premises and the principles of causation and damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002. The court had to consider whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish negligence and whether the damages awarded should be reduced under the Act's provisions for gratuitous past assistance.

The court held that Transformex owed a duty of care to Juric, which was breached, resulting in Juric's injuries. The circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the workplace, the condition of the premises, and the absence of safety measures, was deemed sufficient to establish negligence. The court applied the Civil Liability Act 2002 to assess the damages, taking into account the gratuitous assistance provided by Juric's family prior to the accident. The court determined that the total damages were $762,102, but given the jurisdictional limits and Transformex's refusal to waive them, the final verdict was for Juric in the sum of $750,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

The total damages are $762,102. As the defendant has not agreed to waive any jurisdictional limits on damages, there will accordingly be a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $750,000.

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.

CITATION:	Juric v Transformex Pty Limited [2007] NSWDC 229
HEARING DATE(S):	9 - 12 October
JUDGMENT DATE:	13 November 2007
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Goldring DCJ
DECISION:	The total damages are $762,102. As the defendant has not agreed to waive any jurisdictional limits on damages, there will accordingly be a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $750,000.
CATCHWORDS:	Torts - negligence - occupier - duty to independent contractor working on premises - Interpreter - credit of witness whose first language is not English - Evidence - circumstantial evidence to support finding of negligence - Causation - Civil Liability Act 2002 principles - Damages - domestic assistance future where assistance provided gratuitously in past
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Liability Act 2002
CASES CITED:	Metcash Trading Limited v Scripcariu [2006] NSWCA 78 Maricic v Dalma Formwork (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor [2006] NSWCA 174 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] 79 ALJR 839 Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352 Teuma v CP & PK Judd Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 166 Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Lolomanaia (2001) 34 MVR 249 Matchan v Lyons (2004) 40 MVR 466
PARTIES:	Branimir Juric (Plaintiff) Transformex Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER(S):	4822 of 2005
COUNSEL:	Mr C. Heazlewood (Plaintiff) Mr N. Polin (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff) Gadens Lawyers (Defendant)