Lee v Woolworths Limited - [2015] NSWSC 1789

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v Woolworths Limited [2015] NSWSC 1789
Hearing dates: 2– 6 November 2015
Date of orders: 04 December 2015
Decision date: 04 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Verdict for the defendant.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – personal injury – where plaintiff injured when manually restacking goods in his prime mover – whether plaintiff was owed a duty by the defendant to assist him with that task – whether defendant entitled to do nothing
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 217 CLR 424
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard [2009] NSWCA 167
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 214 ALR 349
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins [2003] HCA 51; (2003) 215 CLR 317
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] 2 WLR 343; [2015] UKSC 2
Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923
Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59; (2001) 207 CLR 562
Swain v Waverly Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4; (2005) 220 CLR 517
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Anthony Lee (Plaintiff)
Wickhams Freight Lines Pty Ltd (Third defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Dooley SC with P Clingan (Plaintiff)
M McCulloch SC with T Berberian (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Caroll & O’Dea Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2008/289079
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mark Lee drove his semi-trailer from Windsor to Sydney on 14 March 2005. At some point during its journey from Queensland, part of the load in the truck became unstable and collapsed. This was not discovered by Mr Lee until he arrived at his final destination and the contents of his trailer were examined. Mr Lee was seriously injured when he attempted by himself to restack the failed load onto pallets.
These proceedings relate to that incident and the responsibility, if any, of Wickham Freight Lines Pty Ltd for what happened. By reason of the professional and cooperative approach to this litigation taken by the parties and their legal representatives, only limited questions remain in dispute. The reasons that follow deal with those issues.

Background

Mr Lee was employed by Williams Bulk Haulage Pty Ltd as a truck driver. Williams was sub-contracted by Wickham to haul loads out of Warwick in Queensland to Combined Distribution Management Pty Ltd at Yennora in Sydney in the performance of Wickham’s obligations pursuant to its contract with Combined Distribution. Goods transported to Yennora in this way were received into Combined Distribution’s depot for unloading and later secondary delivery to retailers whose stores could not accommodate a tautliner of the type driven by Mr Lee. Combined Distribution maintained…

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 Lee v Woolworths Limited

Details

AGLC: Lee v Woolworths Limited [2015] NSWSC 1789
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1789
Decision Date: 04 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a claim by the plaintiff against Woolworths Limited, the defendant, for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while he was manually restacking goods in his prime mover. The plaintiff sought compensation for the injuries he suffered due to the difficulty of the task and the lack of assistance provided by the defendant. The court was required to determine whether Woolworths Limited owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to assist him with the restacking task and whether the defendant was entitled to take no action in assisting the plaintiff.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Woolworths Limited owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to assist him with the restacking task. The court considered whether the difficulty of the task and the lack of assistance provided by the defendant constituted a breach of that duty. The court also considered whether the defendant was entitled to do nothing in assisting the plaintiff with the task. The court found that Woolworths Limited owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to assist him with the restacking task, and that the lack of assistance provided by the defendant constituted a breach of that duty.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the task and the potential risks associated with it. The court found that the task was inherently difficult and that the lack of assistance provided by the defendant increased the risk of injury to the plaintiff. The court also considered the relationship between the parties and the degree of control that the defendant had over the task. The court found that Woolworths Limited had a sufficient degree of control over the task to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to assist him. The court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to do nothing in assisting the plaintiff with the restacking task.

The court ordered Woolworths Limited to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the injuries he sustained. The court found that the defendant's breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for those injuries. The court did not specify the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Orders