Legal Research
Cases
Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd

Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 February 1975 29 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan A.C.J., Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ. (The Right Honourable MR. JUSTICE MENZIES died before the delivery of judgment of this case.)

NELSON v. JOHN LYSAGHT (AUSTRALIA) LTD.

(1975) 132 CLR 201

28 February 1975

Negligence

Negligence—Safe system of work—Installation of new system shortly after accident—No evidence that new system inordinately expensive or otherwise disadvantageous or cross-examination on such matters—Whether open to jury to find old system defective.

Decisions

1975, February 28.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
McTIERNAN A.C.J. In November 1968, Kerry Allan Nelson, the appellant, met with a serious accident at a mill which John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd, the respondent, Mr. Nelson's employer, was operating. (at p202)

2. In June 1971 Mr. Nelson commenced an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the company. He alleged that the injuries he suffered in the accident resulted from negligence for which the company was answerable. The action was tried by Samuels J. and a jury. The plaintiff and a fellow workman gave evidence of facts relied upon to establish the allegation of negligence. The company produced no evidence. Their counsel moved for a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Samuels J., while holding there was substance in the submission that there was no evidence fit to be left to the jury, decided there was evidence which justified leaving the case to the jury. The jury returned a verdict awarding Mr. Nelson $24,000 damages. The company appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The judges of the Court, Reynolds, Hutley and Bowen JJ.A., who heard the appeal decided, in effect, that there was not any evidence of negligence which justified allowing the case to go to the jury. But they rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the company that the damages found were excessive and unreasonable. In the present appeal by Mr. Nelson this Court is asked to hold that there is evidence to support a finding that the injuries of which the plaintiff complained were caused through negligence for which the company is answerable. The company did not here, by a cross-appeal or otherwise, challenge the jury's assessment of damages. (at p203)

3. The pleadings in the action are a declaration, a plea of not guilty and a replication joining issue upon the plea. The plaintiff, in the declaration, made these averments: First, that at all material times he was employed by the company as a feeder at the mill where the accident happened. It is described as the "4-HI Mill of the Commonwealth Rolling Mills". Secondly, that "as part of his duties the plaintiff was required to walk from time to time upon a ramp which is known as the Coil Entry Ramp being a loading ramp of the Mill upon which steel coils are deposited AND in the course of his duties the plaintiff was required to walk across the tail end of a certain steel coil then upon the…

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 Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) 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: [1975] HCA 9
Decision Date: 28 February 1975

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nelson v John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia regarding the interpretation of a contract for the sale of land. The appellant, Nelson, sought to recover damages for breach of contract against the respondent, John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd, alleging that the respondent had failed to deliver possession of the land by the agreed date. The core of the dispute lay in whether the contract contained a condition precedent that had not been satisfied, thereby excusing the respondent's delay.

The High Court was required to determine whether the contract for the sale of land was conditional upon the respondent obtaining vacant possession of the property by a specified date. Specifically, the court had to consider the legal effect of a clause in the contract that stated the sale was subject to the respondent "giving vacant possession of the said land to the purchaser on or before the 1st day of July, 1969." The central question was whether this clause constituted a condition precedent to the respondent's obligation to complete the sale, or merely a term of the contract the breach of which would give rise to a claim for damages.

The majority of the High Court, in their joint judgment, held that the clause in question did not create a condition precedent to the contract's performance. Instead, they reasoned that it was a contractual promise by the vendor to deliver vacant possession by a certain date. The court applied the principle that where a contract specifies a date for performance of a particular obligation, and that date passes without performance, the party who failed to perform is in breach of contract, unless the contract clearly indicates that the obligation is a condition precedent to the entire agreement. The court found no such clear indication in the wording of the contract.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to give vacant possession by the stipulated date. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for assessment of damages.

Orders