Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWDC 543

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 543
Hearing dates: 25, 26, 27, 31 October 2023
1, 2, 3 November 2023
Date of orders: 6 December 2023
Decision date: 06 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Dismiss the defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 29 September 2023.
(2)   Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in relation to that Notice of Motion.
(3)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $521,134.
(4)   Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
(5) The exhibits are returned.

Catchwords:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — discoverability — personal injury — when plaintiff knew or ought to have known the fact that the injury was caused by the fault of the defendant
NEGLIGENCE — general principles
DAMAGES — non-economic loss — economic loss — loss of superannuation — out-of-pocket expenses — domestic assistance
OTHER — plaintiff injured while replacing a bearing in a grain auger — employed by defendant’s subsidiary company — defendant responsible for safety on site, including maintenance tasks

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 5F, 5G, 5H, 13, 15, 15C, 16
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 18A, 50C, 50D
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 66, 150
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672
Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58
Murgolo v AAI Ltd [2019] NSWCA 295
Pomare v Whyte [2019] NSWCA 317
Synergy Scaffolding Services Pty Ltd v Alelaimat [2023] NSWCA 213
Williams v Twynam Agricultural Group Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1098

Texts Cited:
Dominic Villa, Annotated Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (2nd ed Thomson Reuters)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ian Rindfleish (Plaintiff)
Agrigrain Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Balendra (Plaintiff)
M A Friedgut with M Meares (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Slater & Gordon (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00070861

Judgment

Introduction

On 18 January 2016 the plaintiff Mr Ian Rindfleish was working at a grain handling facility at Gadsens Lane in Coonamble. While attempting to replace a bearing in a grain auger, Mr Rindfleish suffered serious facial injuries when part of the machine shattered.
By an Amended Statement of Claim filed on 1 December 2022 Mr Rindfleish sued Agrigrain Pty Ltd as the sole defendant. His pleading alleged that at the time of the incident he was employed by Agrigrain (Coonamble) Pty Ltd, which was a 100% owned subsidiary of the defendant. The Amended Statement of Claim alleged that the defendant exercised authority and control over grain handling operations, which included maintenance tasks. The Amended Statement of Claim also alleged that the defendant exercised authority and control over safety at the premises, including with respect to maintenance tasks.
Mr Rindfleish pleaded that on 18 January 2016, assisted by an employee of Agrigrain (Coonamble) Pty Ltd, Mr Luke Hamilton, he was involved in changing a bearing at the base of a grain auger. The auger consisted of a…

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 Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 543
Case: [2023] NSWDC 543
Decision Date: 06 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Rindfleish, and the defendant, Agrigrain Pty Ltd. Mr. Rindfleish sought damages for injuries sustained during his employment, which he claimed were due to the negligence of the defendant. The dispute reached the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where it was determined that the defendant was responsible for the safety measures on the site, including maintenance tasks, and thus liable for any negligence-related injuries. The primary issues the court needed to address were the discoverability of the injury and the applicable limitation period for the claim, as well as the quantification of damages, including non-economic loss, economic loss, loss of superannuation, out-of-pocket expenses, and domestic assistance.

The court considered the principles of discoverability in relation to personal injury claims, determining when Mr. Rindfleish knew or ought to have known that his injury was caused by the defendant's negligence. The court found that the plaintiff became aware of the connection between the injury and the defendant’s negligence within the limitation period, thus preserving the claim's validity. Additionally, the court assessed the quantum of damages, evaluating the non-economic loss, economic loss, and specific claims for loss of superannuation, out-of-pocket expenses, and domestic assistance. The court held that the defendant was liable for the full extent of the damages claimed by Mr. Rindfleish.

Following its analysis, the court dismissed the defendant's Notice of Motion, ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs in relation to that motion, and granted judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $521,134. The court also directed that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs and ordered that the exhibits be returned. This decision underscores the importance of timely recognition of injury causation and the comprehensive assessment of damages in personal injury claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 29 September 2023.

(2) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in relation to that Notice of Motion.

(3) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $521,134.

(4) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(5) The exhibits are returned.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rindfleish v Agrigrain Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 543
Hearing dates:	25, 26, 27, 31 October 2023 1, 2, 3 November 2023
Date of orders:	6 December 2023
Decision date:	06 December 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Russell SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Dismiss the defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 29 September 2023. (2) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in relation to that Notice of Motion. (3) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $521,134. (4) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. (5) The exhibits are returned.
Catchwords:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — discoverability — personal injury — when plaintiff knew or ought to have known the fact that the injury was caused by the fault of the defendant NEGLIGENCE — general principles DAMAGES — non-economic loss — economic loss — loss of superannuation — out-of-pocket expenses — domestic assistance OTHER — plaintiff injured while replacing a bearing in a grain auger — employed by defendant’s subsidiary company — defendant responsible for safety on site, including maintenance tasks
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 5F, 5G, 5H, 13, 15, 15C, 16 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 18A, 50C, 50D Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 66, 150 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672 Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58 Murgolo v AAI Ltd [2019] NSWCA 295 Pomare v Whyte [2019] NSWCA 317 Synergy Scaffolding Services Pty Ltd v Alelaimat [2023] NSWCA 213 Williams v Twynam Agricultural Group Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1098
Texts Cited:	Dominic Villa, Annotated Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (2nd ed Thomson Reuters)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ian Rindfleish (Plaintiff) Agrigrain Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: K Balendra (Plaintiff) M A Friedgut with M Meares (Defendant) Solicitors: Slater & Gordon (Plaintiff) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00070861