Pye, Kenneth v Butterfields Cheese Factors Pty Ltd - [1997] FCA 1168

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEGLIGENCE - Duty of care as between employer and employee - Reasonable foreseeability of damage - Injury to employee’s back while lifting 8 kilo parcel of cheese packs - Employee had prior history of back problems but this not known to employer - No instruction on lifting techniques given to employee - Whether employer failed to provide a safe system of work.

KENNETH PYE v BUTTERFIELDS CHEESE FACTORS PTY LIMITED
AG11 of 1997

JUDGES:      WILCOX, MILES and R D NICHOLSON JJ
PLACE:        CANBERRA
DATE:          31 OCTOBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG11 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

KENNETH PYE
Appellant

AND:

BUTTERFIELDS CHEESE FACTORS PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, MILES AND R D NICHOLSON JJ

DATE:

31 OCTOBER 1997

PLACE:

CANBERRA

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG11 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

KENNETH PYE
Appellant

AND:

BUTTERFIELDS CHEESE FACTORS PTY LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, MILES AND R D NICHOLSON JJ

DATE:

31 OCTOBER 1997

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This is an appeal from a decision of Gallop J, in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, entering judgment in favour of the defendant, Butterfields Cheese Factors Pty Limited, in an action for damages for negligence brought by a former employee, Kenneth Pye. Mr Pye claimed he suffered a back injury on 17 June 1993 when lifting an eight kilogram parcel of cheese packs.

This was not the first time Mr Pye had sustained an injury to his back. In 1984, at the age of only 21 years, he had hurt his back while moving a map cabinet at work. On 8 March 1985 a laminectomy was performed but it brought no improvement and, on 14 June 1985, he had a fusion operation at the level of L5 S/1. That operation was followed by a second fusion operation on 24 April 1986 and a calcification procedure in 1988. Apparently, Mr Pye eventually made a good recovery and was able to work in a variety of employments before he commenced with Butterfields in January 1993.

The trial Judge noted that counsel before him agreed there were two real issues in the case:

“One, whether the defendant knew of the compromise of the plaintiff’s back condition prior to 17 June 1993; two, whether it was unsafe to require the plaintiff to lift and move around a weight of 8 kilos, as he did, noting that the defendant reserves the right to argue the plaintiff’s experience and knowledge of safe lifting practices and actual instruction of the plaintiff is not alleged by the defendant.”

It is clear from 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 Pye, Kenneth v Butterfields Cheese Factors 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: [1997] FCA 1168
Decision Date: 31 Oct 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kenneth Pye, a former employee, brought an action against Butterfields Cheese Factors Pty Limited for damages due to alleged negligence, claiming he suffered a back injury while lifting an eight-kilogram parcel of cheese packs. Pye had a history of back problems, including multiple surgeries, but this was not known to Butterfields at the time of his employment. Butterfields argued that no instruction on lifting techniques was given to Pye, and they were not aware of his previous back issues. The key legal issues were whether Butterfields knew about Pye's compromised back condition and whether it was unsafe to require him to lift an eight-kilogram weight. The trial judge found that Butterfields was not aware of Pye's pre-existing back issues, and thus, they were entitled to consider him fit for the job.

The court examined whether Butterfields breached its duty of care by not providing proper instruction on lifting techniques, despite the inherent risks of the job. The evidence indicated that while Butterfields acknowledged the need for lifting instructions, there was no specific evidence that Pye was not given such instructions. Furthermore, the court found that lifting an eight-kilogram weight did not represent a hazard that an employer, acting reasonably, would need to prevent through instruction or warning. The Federal Court of Australia held that the employer did not breach its duty of care, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders