Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited v Still

In *Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited v Still*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a negligence claim brought by a contract worker, Mr. Still, against the occupier of a factory, Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited. Mr. Still suffered injury when a compartment door of a plastic thermoforming machine unexpectedly sprang open under pressure while he was working on it. The incident occurred because the power to the machine's spindle had been inadvertently left on, creating pressure on the door.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mungis had breached its duty of care to Mr. Still. Specifically, the court had to determine if Mungis was negligent in failing to install an automatic switch that would shut off the power to the machine when the compartment door was opened, and whether it had breached its duty by failing to adequately instruct Mr. Still on the use of emergency stop buttons. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr. Still was guilty of contributory negligence by failing to turn off the machine before attempting to open the compartment, and whether the primary judge's apportionment of responsibility should be disturbed.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Basten and Macfarlan JJA and Sackville AJA, dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court's reasoning affirmed the primary judge's findings regarding the breaches of duty by Mungis and the contributory negligence of Mr. Still. The court applied established principles of negligence, focusing on the occupier's duty to provide a safe system of work and the worker's responsibility to take reasonable care for their own safety. The court found that Mungis had failed to implement adequate safety measures and that Mr. Still's actions, while contributing to his injury, did not warrant a significant alteration to the apportionment of responsibility.

Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. Mungis (No 2) Pty Limited was ordered to pay Mr. Still's costs of the appeal, and Mr. Still, as the cross-appellant, was ordered to pay Mungis's costs of the cross-appeal.