CITATION: Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Limited v Gordon [2001] NSWCA 65 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40922/99 HEARING DATE(S): 22/03/01 JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2001PARTIES :
Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Limited v Desmond GordonJUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Stein JA at 2; Ipp AJA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :6569/97 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Delaney DCJ
COUNSEL: (Appellant): J S Drummond
(Respondent): S L Walmsley SC/R TaylorSOLICITORS: (Appellant): Michell Sillar
(Respondent): Stoikovich & BanfieldCATCHWORDS: PERSONAL INJURY - workplace injury - double storey unit, no staircase, scaffolding or other means of access - STATUTORY DUTY - breach - Construction Safety Act 1912 - Construction Safety Regulations 1950 reg 73 - whether regulation applies to a head contractor - where preliminary work to be carried out by head contractor, head contractor liable - where a head contractor participates in faulty construction work it will be liable to independent contractors - whether a person is bound by the regulations will depend on whether a person is actually carrying out building work - breach of regulations found - voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence no answer to breach of statutory duty - CONTRACT - breach of implied duty - term implied by operation of law for employer to take reasonable care for employees safety - no facts to support express agreement overriding implied term - breach of implied term found - voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence do not apply to breach of contract - DAMAGES - quantum - whether psychiatric injury caused by accident - findings of trial judge on quantum upheld. D LEGISLATION CITED: Construction Safety Regulations 1950
Construction Safety Act 1912 (NSW)CASES CITED: H C Buckman and Son Pty Limited v Flannagan (1974) 133 CLR 422
Davey v Skinner [1961] SR (NSW) 648
Hetherington v Mirvac Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 443
Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 264
Matthews v Kuwait Bechtel Corporation [1959] 2 QB 57
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] 1 QB 333
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Limited (1985) 160 CLR 16
Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation [1944] KB 476
Tingle v J B Hinz and Sons [1970] Qd R 108
King v Commissioner for Railways [1971] Qd R 266
Astley v Austrust Limited (1999) 197 CLR 1DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Cross appeal upheld. Verdict for $230,396 set aside and judgment for respondent and a verdict in the sum of $460,792. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the trial, appeal and cross appeal, and in regard to the cross appeal the appellant to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40922/99
DC 6569/97
MEAGHER JA
STEIN JA
IPP AJA
Friday 30 March 2001
MAGGIOTTO BUILDING CONCEPTS PTY LIMITED v DESMOND GORDON
JUDGMENT
1 MEAGHER JA: I agree with Ipp AJA.
2 STEIN JA: I Agree with Ipp AJA.
3 IPP AJA:
The accident of 23…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Ltd v Gordon and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] NSWCA 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the appellant, as the head contractor, had breached its statutory duty under the *Construction Safety Act 1912* and *Construction Safety Regulations 1950*, specifically regulation 73, by failing to provide adequate safety measures. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant had breached an implied contractual duty to take reasonable care for the safety of independent contractors working on the site. The appellant also sought to rely on defences of voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
The court found that regulation 73 of the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950* applied to the head contractor, particularly as the appellant was involved in preliminary work and participated in the faulty construction. The court held that a person is bound by the regulations if they are actually carrying out building work, which the appellant was. Consequently, a breach of the regulations was established. The court further determined that voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence were not defences to a breach of statutory duty. Regarding the contractual claim, the court found a breach of the implied term that an employer must take reasonable care for the safety of those working for them, and that no facts supported an express agreement overriding this implied term. Similar to the statutory duty claim, voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence were not applicable to a breach of contract.
The appeal was dismissed, but the cross-appeal was upheld. The original verdict for $230,396 was set aside, and judgment was entered for the respondent with a verdict of $460,792. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the trial, appeal, and cross-appeal, with the appellant to receive a certificate under the *Suitors Fund Act 1951* in relation to the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed. Cross appeal upheld. Verdict for $230,396 set aside and judgment for respondent and a verdict in the sum of $460,792. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the trial, appeal and cross appeal, and in regard to the cross appeal the appellant to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.
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.