Metri v Nestlé Australia Ltd

In the matter of Metri v Nestlé Australia Ltd, the dispute arose from an incident where the plaintiff, Metri, was injured while operating a forklift provided by Nestlé. The plaintiff alleged that the forklift had a defect which had been identified by a mechanic but was not repaired. The plaintiff claimed that this failure amounted to negligence on the part of Nestlé. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for economic loss, including loss of earning capacity, as well as for pain and suffering resulting from the accident.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether Nestlé had a duty of care to repair the forklift when the fault was identified and whether the failure to do so constituted negligence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's actions in using the forklift, given the known fault, could be considered contributory negligence. The court also needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiff's economic loss and whether the limitation period for commencing proceedings had expired.

The court found that Nestlé had a duty to ensure the forklift was safe to operate and that this duty was breached by not repairing the identified fault. The court held that the plaintiff's actions in using the forklift, despite the known fault, were reasonable and motivated by a concern for the safety of others, thus not amounting to contributory negligence. Regarding the measure of damages, the court found that the plaintiff had no residual earning capacity and no viable alternative occupation was proposed or available, leading to a comprehensive award of economic loss. The court also ruled that the limitation period had not expired, as the plaintiff's knowledge of the fault did not trigger the commencement of the limitation period until legal advice was obtained.

The court ordered Nestlé to pay damages to Metri, including compensation for economic loss and non-economic damages, and costs of the proceeding. The court's decision emphasised the importance of employers ensuring workplace safety and the need for timely repair of known defects in equipment.