SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Meyer v Cool Chilli Pty Ltd |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 336 |
Hearing Dates: | 14, 15 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 30 October 2015 |
Before: | Mossop AsJ |
Decision: | See [105] |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | PERSONAL INJURY – Fall from ladder – injury to employee of independent contractor while working at premises of third party – limited participation in work by employee of third party – whether negligence or breach of statutory duty by independent contractor or third party – apportionment of liability between independent contractor and third party BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – Interpretation of “building work” in Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 (ACT) – applicability of statutory duty to principals and independent contractors – scope of statutory duty in relation to temporary use of ladder – Scaffolding and Lifts Regulation 1950 (ACT) ss 73, 80 |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 21, 168 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 148 Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 (ACT) s 24 Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) Scaffolding and Lifts Regulation 1950 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 73, 80 |
Cases Cited: | Carton v Rainbow Plumbing and Drainage Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 267 Classic Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fischetti [2015] ACTCA 51 |
Texts Cited: | P Butt Land Law (6th edition) |
Parties: | Ashlea Meyer (Plaintiff) Cool Chilli Pty Ltd (Defendant) Royal Canberra Golf Club Limited (Third Party) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr A Muller (Plaintiff) Mr D Shillington (Defendant) Mr B Kelleher (Third Party) |
| Solicitors Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Plaintiff) Dibbs Barker (Defendant) Colin, Biggers & Paisley (Third Party) | |
File Number: | SC 233 of 2014 |
Introduction
On 7 June 2012 the plaintiff, who was working in an IT support role for the defendant, was doing work at the premises of the third party which included the replacement of an uninterruptible power supply for a computer which was located in the ceiling space of a building. As she was climbing a ladder to get into the ceiling space, the ladder slipped from beneath her and she fell to the floor, injuring herself. She has sued the defendant, her employer, in negligence and the defendant has issued a third-party notice against the third party seeking contribution or indemnity.
Events up to the accident
As at the date of the accident the plaintiff was almost 21 years old. Her educational and work history prior to the accident was as follows.
After she completed year 12 at Lake Tuggeranong College she commenced an IT traineeship with the ACT government in July 2009. That traineeship involved a combination of work and study. She left that traineeship six months prior to its conclusion but after having completed…
Continue reading Meyer v Cool Chilli Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Meyer v Cool Chilli Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 336
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 336
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court first examined the meaning of "building work" as defined under the Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 (ACT) to determine the applicability of statutory duties to the independent contractor and the third party. It was established that the ladder was being used temporarily, which raised questions about the scope of the statutory duties in such circumstances. The court also considered the limited involvement of the third party's employees in the work that led to the injury. The court had to interpret the statutory provisions, including sections 73 and 80 of the Scaffolding and Lifts Regulation 1950 (ACT), to ascertain whether these applied to the independent contractor and the third party. The court found that both the independent contractor and the third party had statutory duties under the act, but the extent of these duties and the manner of their breach needed to be determined.
After a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the injury, the court concluded that both the independent contractor and the third party were liable for the breach of statutory duty. The court found that the third party had a limited but significant role in creating the unsafe conditions that led to the accident, while the independent contractor was also at fault for not ensuring a safe working environment. The court apportioned liability between the two parties, determining that both were responsible for contributing to the unsafe conditions. The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [105], where the court outlined the apportionment of liability and any other relevant orders concerning the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [105]
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.