Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd - [2021] QDC 14

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 14

PARTIES:

GRAYSON GEORGE MEECHAN

(plaintiff)

v

SAVCO EARTH MOVING PTY LTD

(ACN 103 377 715 )

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

382 of 2017

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Friday, 5 February, 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 and 11 June 2019

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2.   If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Friday, 19 February, 2021.

3.   If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i)       the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 26 February 2021;

(ii)     the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 5 March 2021; and

(iii)    the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Wednesday, 10 March 2021

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff employed by sub-contractor of defendant – where plaintiff fell off the back of a truck after being struck by the boom of an excavator causing injury to right elbow and shoulder – where excavator was operated by unlicensed employee of the sub-contractor – where plaintiff admits to throwing a weighted object at excavator driver – where allegations by plaintiff include failure to ensure integrity of excavator on site, failure to ensure excavator was operated exclusively by experienced and licenced operators and failing to isolate the keys of the excavator – where quantum in issue – whether defendant breached its duty of care – whether any breach by the defendant was causative of the loss suffered by the plaintiff

LEGISLATION:

CASES:
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408, cited
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox & Ors (2009) 240 CLR 1, applied
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, applied

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, cited

COUNSEL:
R J Lynch for the plaintiff

E J Williams for the defendant

SOLICITORS:
Gouldson Legal for the plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mr Grayson Meechan, was employed by a sub-contractor of the defendant, Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd (Savco).
Mr Meechan says that on 21 January 2014, in the course of his employment, while standing in the back of a truck he was struck by the boom of a hydraulic excavator owned by Savco. Mr Meechan alleges that he was knocked to the ground, thereby suffering personal injuries, loss and other damage.
Both liability and quantum are in issue.
Savco carried on the business of an excavating contractor.
Savco was the principal contractor of a job site situated at St Francis College, Julie Street, Crestmead in the State of Queensland (the Site). Savco…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QDC 14
Decision Date: 5 February, 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Meechan, was employed by a sub-contractor of the defendant, Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd, when he was injured. Meechan fell off the back of a truck after being struck by the boom of an excavator, resulting in injuries to his right elbow and shoulder. The excavator was being operated by an unlicensed employee of the sub-contractor at the time of the incident. The plaintiff admitted to throwing a weighted object at the excavator driver prior to the accident. Meechan's claims against Savco included failure to ensure the integrity of the excavator on the site, failure to ensure it was operated exclusively by experienced and licensed operators, and failing to isolate the keys of the excavator.

The central legal issues in the case were whether Savco breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and if any such breach caused the loss suffered by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the specific duties owed by Savco to the plaintiff in the context of the sub-contracting relationship and the circumstances surrounding the accident. The court examined the negligence claims and assessed whether Savco's conduct fell below the standard of care expected under the circumstances. The court also considered the contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, given his admission of throwing an object at the excavator driver.

In reaching its decision, the court found that Savco did not breach its duty of care towards the plaintiff. The court held that Savco had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the excavator and the site, and the injuries were not a result of any failure on Savco's part. The court also found that the plaintiff's actions significantly contributed to the accident. Consequently, the claim against Savco was dismissed. The court ordered that if the parties could not agree on costs, they would follow a schedule for filing written submissions.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, instruct the parties to file a consent order if they could agree on costs, and if not, to follow a schedule for filing written submissions on the issue of costs. The plaintiff was required to file submissions by a specific date, followed by the defendant, and then any reply by the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Friday, 19 February, 2021.

3. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i) the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 26 February 2021;

(ii) the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 5 March 2021; and

(iii) the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Wednesday, 10 March 2021

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.

CITATION:	Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 14
PARTIES:	GRAYSON GEORGE MEECHAN (plaintiff) v SAVCO EARTH MOVING PTY LTD (ACN 103 377 715 ) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	382 of 2017
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Friday, 5 February, 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 and 11 June 2019
JUDGE:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:	1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed. 2. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Friday, 19 February, 2021. 3. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs: (i) the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 26 February 2021; (ii) the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Friday, 5 March 2021; and (iii) the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Wednesday, 10 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff employed by sub-contractor of defendant – where plaintiff fell off the back of a truck after being struck by the boom of an excavator causing injury to right elbow and shoulder – where excavator was operated by unlicensed employee of the sub-contractor – where plaintiff admits to throwing a weighted object at excavator driver – where allegations by plaintiff include failure to ensure integrity of excavator on site, failure to ensure excavator was operated exclusively by experienced and licenced operators and failing to isolate the keys of the excavator – where quantum in issue – whether defendant breached its duty of care – whether any breach by the defendant was causative of the loss suffered by the plaintiff
LEGISLATION:
CASES:	Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408, cited Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox & Ors (2009) 240 CLR 1, applied Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, applied Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, cited
COUNSEL:	R J Lynch for the plaintiff E J Williams for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Gouldson Legal for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant