Peel v Global (WA) Pty Ltd - [2009] WADC 27

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: PEEL -v- GLOBAL (WA) PTY LTD & ANOR [2009] WADC 27

CORAM: O'SULLIVAN DCJ

HEARD: 1-5 DECEMBER 2008

DELIVERED : 6 MARCH 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1205 of 2003

BETWEEN: STEPHEN GEOFFREY PEEL
Plaintiff
AND
GLOBAL (WA) PTY LTD
First Defendant
DINNERDALE PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Claim for damages for personal injuries - Liability in issue - Matter turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr D M Bruns
First Defendant              :     Mr J R Criddle
Second Defendant         :     Mr S R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Separovic & Associates
First Defendant              :     Pynt & Partners
Second Defendant         :     Williams Handcock

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

Nil

O'SULLIVAN DCJ: The plaintiff in this matter was injured when the back of a chair upon which he was sitting collapsed.
He brought an action against the first defendant as manufacturer of the chair and the second defendant which, he alleges, assembled and supplied it.
The claim against the first defendant has been discontinued and contribution proceedings between the first and second defendants have been dismissed by consent.
What remains to be determined is the outcome of the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant. Quantum has been agreed and the only issue is liability.

The accident

The plaintiff who is 52 years of age suffered injury on 4 June 2000 when he was working for Australian Correctional Management Pty Ltd ("ACM") at the Curtin Detention Centre ("the centre"), not far from Derby.
The chair upon which he was sitting was of a secretarial or typist's kind. There is an important issue concerning its precise mechanism and I will return to that matter shortly.
The plaintiff said that on the day in question he was sharing an office with Mr Paul Reeves. He had just returned to the centre after some months and a desk and chair had been provided for his use. He was seated at the desk preparing a management plan for a detainee. Mr Reeves was sitting behind him and he swung around to speak to him, raising his hands behind his head and resting back in the chair. According to the plaintiff there was a loud bang, "almost like a gun going off", and the back of the chair fell from a vertical position to an almost horizontal one causing the plaintiff to fall backwards and sustain injury.

The chair

The plaintiff was in great pain in the lower back as a result of the accident and was taken off to the medical centre. Accordingly he had no opportunity to examine the chair closely at the time, but he said that he saw it the following day. Unfortunately it is not now available to be inspected but he said that he was given some broken parts from it by a Mr Colin Robinson, a fellow worker at the centre. Those parts were contained in a white plastic bag and he gave…

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 Peel v Global (WA) Pty 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: [2009] WADC 27
Decision Date: 6 MARCH 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peel v Global (WA) Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Peel, sought damages for personal injuries sustained during his employment with Global, an engineering and construction company. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where Peel alleged that the injuries were a result of the defendant's negligence. The central issue in this case was whether Global, as Peel's employer, could be held liable for the injuries due to alleged breaches of safety protocols and inadequate safety measures provided at the workplace.

The court had to consider whether Global's conduct met the threshold of negligence, which requires proving that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court examined the specific circumstances of the incident, including the nature of the work environment, the safety measures in place, and whether Global had taken reasonable steps to ensure Peel's safety. The case hinged on the facts and evidence presented regarding the adequacy of the safety protocols and whether any omissions or actions by Global contributed to Peel's injuries.

The court concluded that the matter was heavily dependent on its unique set of facts. It found that Global had failed to provide Peel with a reasonably safe working environment, thus breaching their duty of care. The court held Global liable for the injuries sustained by Peel. The decision underscored the importance of employers taking proactive measures to ensure workplace safety and adhering to legal standards. The court's judgment provided clarity on the specific circumstances leading to the breach of duty and the consequent liability.

Orders