CITATION: Lipman Pty Ltd v McGregor & Ors [2004] NSWCA 6 HEARING DATE(S): 04/02/04 JUDGMENT DATE:
15 March 2004JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA; Santow JA; Gzell J DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Courts and judges generally - A judge's failure to mention insignificant evidence in reasons for judgment is not error - TORTS - Negligence - Employer subcontractor not in breach of non-delegable duty of care when employee injured by negligence of head contractor - CONTRACTS - General Contractual Principles - Construction and Interpretation of Contracts - Indemnity of head contractor by employer subcontractor against liability in respect of personal injury arising out of Works - Works defined as erection and dismantling of scaffolding - Injury sustained when stairs erected by head contractor collapsed - Injury not arising out of Works LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987 CASES CITED: State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Fox v Percy (2003) 77 ALJR 989
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47
Davis v Commissioner for Main Roads (1967-1968) 117 CLR 529
Nigel Watts Fashion Agencies Pty Ltd v GIO General Ltd (1995) 8 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-235
State Government Insurance Office (Q) v Brisbane Stevedoring Pty Ltd (1969) 123 CLR 228PARTIES :
Lipman Pty Ltd - Applicant
Robert McGregor - 1st Respondent
Constructor Scaffolding Pty Ltd - 2nd Respondent
GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd - 3rd RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40165/03 COUNSEL: Mr A C A Bridge SC - For the Applicant
Mr DT Kennedy SC/ Mr M A Kumar - 1st Respondent
Mr P Morris - 3rd RespondentSOLICITORS: Hunt & Hunt Solicitors - Applicant
Taylor & Scott - 1st Respondent
Leitch Hasson Dent - 3rd Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 9700/00 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Patten DCJ
40165/03
SHELLER JA
SANTOW JA
GZELL JMONDAY 15 MARCH 2004
1 SHELLER JA: I agree with Gzell J.
2 SANTOW JA: I agree with Gzell J.
3 GZELL J: The appellant was the head contractor for a multi-storey residential unit development. The first respondent was injured on the building site. He was an employee of the second respondent which had subcontracted to provide scaffolding works. The third respondent was the second respondent’s workers compensation insurer.
4 The second respondent took no part in the proceedings before Patten DCJ and took no part in the appeal. His Honour found the appellant liable in tort for the first respondent’s injuries and found the second respondent had not breached its duty of care to its employee. His Honour also rejected a claim by the appellant against the second respondent under an indemnity clause in the subcontract. In consequence, the appellant also failed against the third respondent.
5 The first respondent worked under the supervision of Mr Knight, another employee of the second…
Continue reading Lipman Pty Ltd v McGregor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lipman Pty Ltd v McGregor [2004] NSWCA 6
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Lipman Pty Ltd, as the head contractor, had breached a non-delegable duty of care owed to Mr McGregor, an employee of a subcontractor. Further, the Court had to consider whether an indemnity clause within the subcontract, which purported to indemnify Lipman against liability for personal injury arising out of the "Works," encompassed the injury sustained by Mr McGregor. The definition of "Works" in the subcontract was crucial to this determination.
The Court held that Lipman Pty Ltd was not in breach of any non-delegable duty of care. It reasoned that the injury sustained by Mr McGregor did not arise out of the "Works" as defined in the subcontract, which specifically referred to the erection and dismantling of scaffolding. The collapse of the stairs, erected by Lipman, was found not to fall within this definition. Consequently, the indemnity clause, which was limited to liabilities arising out of the Works, did not extend to cover the injury suffered by Mr McGregor. The Court also noted that a judge's failure to mention insignificant evidence in their reasons for judgment does not constitute an error.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.