Laybutt v Glover Gibbs Pty Ltd t/as Balfours NSW Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerning a negligence claim brought by an employee, Ms. Laybutt, against her employer, Glover Gibbs Pty Ltd t/as Balfours NSW Pty Ltd. Ms. Laybutt, a pastry cook with approximately six weeks of employment, sustained an injury to her hand and arm while attempting to reassemble a doughnut-making machine for the first time. She had sought instructions on how to perform the task but was told to "give it a go" and was provided with no further guidance, supervision, protective equipment, or a manual. The machine parts were slippery after being washed, and the outer cylinders had sharp edges.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support a jury's verdict of negligence against the employer, given the employee's request for instructions and the employer's failure to provide them or any other form of safe system of work. The court was required to determine if a jury, applying common knowledge and experience, could reasonably conclude that the employer had breached its duty of care. This involved considering whether the circumstances justified the appellate court in reversing the jury's finding.

The High Court reasoned that an employer owes a duty of care to its employees to provide a safe system of work, which includes adequate instructions and supervision, particularly when an employee is asked to perform a task for which they have not been trained. The court found that the employee's explicit request for instructions, coupled with the employer's inadequate response and the inherent risks associated with the task (slippery, sharp-edged parts), provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find negligence. The jury was entitled to conclude, based on common knowledge, that an employer should not expect an untrained employee to undertake such a task without proper instruction or supervision. The court noted that the employee's subsequent ability to perform the task safely did not negate the employer's negligence at the time of the incident.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal and reinstating the jury's verdict. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal and the High Court.