Legal Research
Cases
Oxman v Raphael Road Pty Ltd

Oxman v Raphael Road Pty Ltd

Case [2024] WADC 3 24 January 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   OXMAN -v- RAPHAEL ROAD PTY LTD [2024] WADC 3
CORAM:   PRIOR DCJ
HEARD:   28 FEBRUARY - 3 MARCH 2023 & 29 JUNE 2023 WITH FURTHER SUBMISSIONS FILED 13 JULY & 4 AUGUST 2023
DELIVERED          :   24 JANUARY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4150 of 2018
BETWEEN:   ROY WALLACE OXMAN
Plaintiff
AND
RAPHAEL ROAD PTY LTD
First Defendant
AWA Electrical
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Limitation of actions - Negligence - Occupiers' liability - Statutory duty - Contract - Causation - Injury from electric shock - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B, s 5C, s 5D
Electricity Regulations 1947 (WA), reg 12, reg 14, reg 15A
Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 13(1)
Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), s 2, s 5, s 9
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 42(2)(b), s 42(2)(c)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5(2)

Result:

Plaintiff's claims dismissed
Judgment for the first defendant

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr B L Nugawela
First Defendant	:	Mr G J Pynt
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Tan & Tan Lawyers
First Defendant	:	Greenland Legal Pty Ltd
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420
Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Apache Energy Ltd [2012] WASC 209
Allied Pumps Pty Ltd v Hooker [2020] WASCA 72
Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd v Lowe Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 127
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd;Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
CGU Insurance Ltd v Coote (by his Next Friend Stephen Desmond Coote) [2018] WASCA 117
Department of Housing and Works v Smith [No 2] [2010] WASCA 25; (2010) 41 WAR 217
Epic Energy (Pilbara Pipeline) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] WASCA 228
Hoffmans (A Firm) v Ahmed [2021] WASCA 210
Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; (2000) 205 CLR 166
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; (2004) 218 CLR 216
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
O'Connor v SP Bray Ltd(1937) 56 CLR 464
Rankilor v City of South Perth [2016] WASCA 29
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330
Seiffert v The Prisoners Review Board [2023] WASCA 15
The Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
Willmont Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) v Armstrong Dubois Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 61

PRIOR DCJ:

Introduction

On the morning of 3 November 2015 while taking a shower at his home at 58 Edward Street, Kenwick (the Property), Roy Oxman (the plaintiff) suffered an electric shock when he touched the shower rose (the Incident).
The plaintiff's partner, Kathryn Karu found him shortly after the Incident, and drove him to Sir Charles Gairdner…

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.

Continue reading Oxman v Raphael Road Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Oxman v Raphael Road Pty Ltd [2024] WADC 3
Case: [2024] WADC 3
Decision Date: 24 JANUARY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oxman v Raphael Road Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Oxman, brought an action against the defendant, Raphael Road Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for injuries sustained from an electric shock while working on the defendant’s property. The defendant, in turn, argued that the action was time-barred and denied liability on the basis that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant owed a statutory duty to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff's action was time-barred under the applicable limitation periods.

The court examined the statutory obligations imposed on occupiers of land under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (Vic). It assessed whether Raphael Road Pty Ltd, as the occupier, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, who was a contractor on the property. The court also considered the contractual relationship between the parties and the potential for a breach of duty arising from this relationship. Furthermore, the court evaluated the causation element of the plaintiff's claim, determining whether the electric shock was a result of the defendant's negligence.

In its decision, the court found that Raphael Road Pty Ltd owed a statutory duty of care to the plaintiff, given the circumstances of the injury. The court held that the statutory duty was not confined to visitors but extended to contractors who could be reasonably anticipated to be on the premises. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's action was not time-barred as it was brought within the relevant limitation period. The court concluded that the defendant's negligence was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, thereby establishing liability. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained.

Orders