ONETECH PTY LTD -v- SHAW [1999] WASCA 289
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 289 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:62/1999 | 23 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J McKECHNIE J | 21/12/99 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal and cross-appeal on liability dismissed Appeal on damages allowed Award of damages increased from $540,781 to $606,781 | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ONETECH PTY LTD GEOFFREY JAMES SHAW |
Catchwords: | Negligence Employer's duty of care Safe place of work Worker slipping on cabin floor of vessel Whether a hazard Relevance of Australian/New Zealand Standard Contributory negligence Turns on own facts Damages Loss of earning capacity Deduction for contingencies Correct deduction for income tax Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1986) WAR 32 Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Tort Rep 81-043 Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Sun Alliance Insurance v Massoud (1989) VR 8 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24 Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251 Ward v The Ritz Hotel (London) Ltd (1992) 1 PIQR 315 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1979-1980) 146 CLR 40 Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6 Bevan Investments Ltd v Blackhall & Struthers (No 2) [1973] 2 NZLR 45 De Vries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Electric Power Transmission Pty Ltd v Orgaz, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7194; 3 November 1989 Giner v Public Trustee (1991) 105 FLR 410 Green v Building Scene Ltd & Anor [1994] PIQR (CA) 259 Lawson v Charles Hull Contracting Co Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980561; 25 September 1998 Lyons & Anor v Jandon Constructions (A firm) & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980394; 20 July 1998 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Wade v Allsop (1976) 10 ALR 353 Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 Westralian Farmers Co-operative Ltd v Bunce, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7691; 31 May 1989 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : ONETECH PTY LTD -v- SHAW [1999] WASCA 289 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- MILLER J
McKECHNIE J
- Appellant (Defendant)
AND
GEOFFREY JAMES SHAW
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Negligence - Employer's duty of care - Safe place of work - Worker slipping on cabin floor of vessel - Whether a hazard - Relevance of Australian/New Zealand Standard - Contributory negligence - Turns on own facts
Damages - Loss of earning capacity - Deduction for contingencies - Correct deduction for income tax - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Continue reading Onetech Pty Ltd v Shaw
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Onetech Pty Ltd v Shaw [1999] WASCA 289
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Onetech Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal against a decision that found it had not been negligent in the injuries suffered by Mr Shaw, the respondent, who had slipped on the floor of a vessel. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia originally dismissed Onetech's appeal against a decision of the Federal Court, finding that the vessel's cabin floor was not a hazard. Onetech also appealed against the damages awarded, and Mr Shaw cross-appealed on the basis that the award of damages was inadequate. The Full Court of the Federal Court heard the appeal and cross-appeal.
The main legal issue before the court was whether Onetech was negligent in failing to provide a safe place of work. The court considered whether the cabin floor constituted a hazard under Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4831:2008. The court also had to determine whether Mr Shaw was contributorily negligent. The final issue was the calculation of damages, particularly in relation to loss of earning capacity and the correct deduction for income tax.
The court found that the cabin floor was not a hazard and that Onetech had not breached its duty of care. The court held that the standard did not apply to the cabin floor, and the vessel's design and layout did not create an obvious hazard. The court found that Mr Shaw's actions contributed to his injury and reduced the damages by 25%. The court held that the primary judge was correct to deduct 15% of the damages for contingencies but erred in deducting 2.75% for income tax. The court increased the award of damages from $540,781 to $606,781.
The appeal and cross-appeal on liability were dismissed. The appeal on damages was allowed, and the award of damages was increased from $540,781 to $606,781.
The main legal issue before the court was whether Onetech was negligent in failing to provide a safe place of work. The court considered whether the cabin floor constituted a hazard under Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4831:2008. The court also had to determine whether Mr Shaw was contributorily negligent. The final issue was the calculation of damages, particularly in relation to loss of earning capacity and the correct deduction for income tax.
The court found that the cabin floor was not a hazard and that Onetech had not breached its duty of care. The court held that the standard did not apply to the cabin floor, and the vessel's design and layout did not create an obvious hazard. The court found that Mr Shaw's actions contributed to his injury and reduced the damages by 25%. The court held that the primary judge was correct to deduct 15% of the damages for contingencies but erred in deducting 2.75% for income tax. The court increased the award of damages from $540,781 to $606,781.
The appeal and cross-appeal on liability were dismissed. The appeal on damages was allowed, and the award of damages was increased from $540,781 to $606,781.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal and cross-appeal on liability dismissed
Appeal on damages allowed
Award of damages increased from $540,781 to $606,781
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.