Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v Sheldon Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 77 Hearing dates: 31 March 2016 Decision date: 15 April 2016 Before: Leeming JA; Payne JA; Schmidt J Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Mr Murray to pay 80% of Sheldon’s costs of the appeal.Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – slip and fall – plaintiff fell from ladder while working in building site – plaintiff claimed he slipped because of dust – plaintiff sued head contractor for failing to keep site sufficiently dust-free – challenge to primary facts as to presence of dust – nature of duty owed by head contractor to employee of subcontractor – whether head contractor in breach – causation – whether plaintiff had discharged onus – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5E
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151ZCases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420
Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1997] RPC 1
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; 79 ALJR 839
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 243 CLR 588
Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Keith v Gal [2013] NSWCA 339
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; 240 CLR 1
Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated v His Eminence Petar [2008] HCA 42; 237 CLR 66
Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389
New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; 212 CLR 511
Nominal Defendant v Smith [2015] NSWCA 339; 73 MVR 257
Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27; [1999] 1 WLR 1360
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110
Port Macquarie Hastings Council v Mooney [2014] NSWCA 156; [2014] Aust Torts Rep 82-172
Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73
Sexton v Homer [2013] NSWCA 414; 65 MVR 460
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; 79 ALJR 1816Texts Cited: P McClellan, “Legislative facts and section 144 – a contemporary problem?” (2016) 12 The Judicial Review 421 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen Murray (Appellant)
Sheldon Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A S Morrison SC (Appellant)
R Cavanagh SC, J Curtin (Respondent)
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Appellant)
James Tuite & Associates Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/143382 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 24 April 2015
- Before:
- North DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2013/331919
Judgment
-
THE COURT: Mr Stephen Murray was seriously…
Continue reading Murray v Sheldon Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Murray v Sheldon Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 77
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 77
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a claim in negligence brought by Mr Murray, an employee of a subcontractor, against the head contractor, Sheldon Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd. Mr Murray had fallen from a ladder while working on a building site and alleged that his fall was caused by excessive dust on the premises, for which he contended the head contractor was responsible. The primary factual dispute revolved around the presence and extent of dust on the site at the time of the incident.
The court was required to determine whether the head contractor owed a duty of care to an employee of a subcontractor in relation to the dust levels on the building site, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Further, the court had to consider whether Mr Murray had discharged the onus of proving that the alleged breach of duty caused his fall.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It was held that while a head contractor owes a duty of care to ensure the safety of a subcontractor's employees, this duty is not absolute and is limited by the degree of control the head contractor exercises over the relevant aspect of the work. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the head contractor had failed to take reasonable steps to manage dust on the site, nor did it establish that any dust present was the cause of Mr Murray's fall. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the head contractor owed a duty of care to an employee of a subcontractor in relation to the dust levels on the building site, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Further, the court had to consider whether Mr Murray had discharged the onus of proving that the alleged breach of duty caused his fall.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It was held that while a head contractor owes a duty of care to ensure the safety of a subcontractor's employees, this duty is not absolute and is limited by the degree of control the head contractor exercises over the relevant aspect of the work. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the head contractor had failed to take reasonable steps to manage dust on the site, nor did it establish that any dust present was the cause of Mr Murray's fall. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Mr Murray to pay 80% of Sheldon’s costs of the appeal.
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.