Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris - [1996] HCATrans 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B14 of 1996

B e t w e e n -
NORTHERN SANDBLASTING PTY LTD
Appellant
and
NICOLE ANNE HARRIS (an infant by her next friend PAMELA HARRIS)

Respondent

BRENNAN CJ
DAWSON J

TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 1996, AT 10.22 AM

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.J. CLIFFORD, QC, for the appellant. (instructed by O’Mara Patterson & Perrier)

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR F.J. TOY, for the respondent. (instructed by Boulton Cleary & Kern)

BRENNAN CJ: Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON: Your Honours, may I hand to the Court a copy of our outline of submissions.

BRENNAN CJ: I might say, Mr Jackson, that it is intended that there should be new practice direction in relation inter alia to the notes of argument. That has been, I think, circulated to the Law Council and the Australian Bar Association. It should be understood that it is not necessary that the practices which are mentioned there necessarily have to wait until the commencing date. Yes, Mr Jackson.

MR JACKSON: Your Honours, as it is apparent from the papers, this is a tragic case of course where the events resulted in the electrocution of a nine year old girl. May I just go briefly to some aspects of the circumstances before turning to the submissions which we wish to make. Your Honours will see in paragraphs 1 and 2 of our outline of submissions that we set out the basic facts in very short compass. Could I just say something, your Honours, in relation to paragraph 3 of the matters there set out. Your Honours will see the reference at page 20 of the appeal book to the events which brought about the engagement of Mr Briggs, the electrician. They commence at the top of page 20 and your Honours will see that the element would not work on 2 June; the engagement was at the request of the plaintiff’s mother, who was one of the tenants, and that was done at the request of the mother. The landlord authorised the obtaining of a quotation and then the electrician reported to us by telephone and was authorised to carry out the repairs and the fault was a simple one and the repair of the actual fault itself was competent and effective.

Could we invite your Honours to note three matters in relation to paragraph 3. The first is that what was sought in the particular case by the tenant and what was provided by the landlord, as one might expect, was the services of an electrician, not, in effect, of the landlord itself, and it was obviously necessary for there to be services of…

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 Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris 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: [1996] HCATrans 317
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had affirmed a judgment in favour of Mr. Harris (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's claim for damages for personal injury sustained while working for the appellant. The respondent alleged that the appellant had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment, specifically in relation to the use of a mobile scaffold.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant had breached its duty of care to the respondent, and if so, whether that breach caused the respondent's injuries. A key issue was the application of the principles of contributory negligence and the extent to which the respondent's own actions might have contributed to his fall from the scaffold. The Court also considered the standard of care expected of an employer in providing a safe system of work, particularly in the context of potentially hazardous activities.

The Court's reasoning focused on the employer's non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work. It was held that the appellant had failed to implement adequate safety measures regarding the use of the scaffold, including proper inspection and securing procedures. While the respondent's conduct was considered, the majority found that the appellant's breach of duty was the primary cause of the injuries. The Court applied established principles of negligence, emphasizing that an employer must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of injury to its employees.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondent was awarded damages, with a reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders