Lovric & Anor v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales & Ors

Lovric and another person filed an application against the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales and others. The plaintiffs were seriously injured in an explosion at a fireworks factory. The dispute centred around the duty of care owed by the statutory authority due to its failure to enforce improvement and prohibition notices. This was particularly significant given that a worker had died in similar circumstances three years prior. The case was heard in the Civil Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the statutory authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs by reason of its failure to enforce improvement and prohibition notices and whether the existence of the alleged duty was reasonably arguable. The court needed to assess the applicability of UCPR 13.4 and 14.28 in relation to the application for summary judgment or strike out. It was crucial to establish whether the plaintiffs had a case that was strong enough to warrant a summary judgment or if the defence was so weak that the matter should be struck out.

The court found that the existence of the alleged duty of care was not reasonably arguable. It concluded that the statutory authority's failure to enforce improvement and prohibition notices did not establish a duty of care. The court was of the view that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a prima facie case. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was refused, and the matter was not struck out. The reasoning was that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. The court's decision was based on the legal principles governing the enforcement of improvement and prohibition notices and the specific circumstances of the case.