Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited - [2024] QSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited [2024] QSC 279

PARTIES:

ROBERT CLEMENT RUSBRIDGE

(plaintiff)

v
LAKE FOX LIMITED ABN 47 010 563 596 trading as ROCKY’S OWN TRANSPORT CO

(first defendant)

AND
ORICA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 99 004 117 828
(second defendant)
AND
LAKE FOX LIMITED ABN 47 010 563 596 trading as ROCKY’S OWN TRANSPORT CO

(third party)

FILE NO:

BS 128/22

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2024

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1. Judgment be entered for the second defendant against the first defendant/ third party in the sum of $227,421;

2. The parties be heard on the form of the orders and on costs, including the costs claimed in paragraph 13(b) of the second defendants’ pleading.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – where the second defendant, Orica, and the first defendant/third party, ROTC, were parties to a contract where ROTC was to provide transport services to Orica – where the plaintiff was employed by ROTC but worked on Orica’s premises – where the plaintiff brought a claim for an injury sustained to his left hand on Orica’s premises – where Orica settled its claim with the plaintiff – where Orica claims that clause 21.3 of the contract requires ROTC to hold public liability insurance for Orica – whether ROTC breached the contract by not providing insurance cover for Orica

Canberra Formwork Pty Ltd v Civil and Civic Ltd (1982) 67 FLR 66, cited
DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423, cited
Erect Safe Scaffolding v Sutton (2008) 72 NSWLR 1; [2008] NSWCA 114, distinguished
GIO General Ltd v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 13, applied
Heavy Plant Leasing Pty Ltd (in Liq) v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) (2022) 163 ACSR 562; [2022] NSWSC 1775, cited

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited

COUNSEL:

M R Hodge KC, with H L Lilley, for the second defendant

B K Charrington KC, with D J Hinkley, for the first defendant/third party

SOLICITORS:

Clayton Utz for the second defendant

Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers for the first defendant/third party

The plaintiff in the proceeding, Mr Rusbridge, was injured on 5 December 2019. At the time of his injury Mr Rusbridge was an employee of the first defendant, Lake Fox Limited, trading as Rocky’s Own Transport Co (‘ROTC’). As its name suggests, ROTC carried on a transport business.
Mr Rusbridge was injured whilst at the premises of the second defendant, Orica Australia Pty Ltd. Orica and ROTC were parties to a contract whereby ROTC provided transport services to Orica. The contract was entitled “Transport Services Agreement” (‘TSA’) and commenced on 1 November 2019.
The terms of the TSA are important to 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.

Continue reading Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited

Details

AGLC: Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited [2024] QSC 279
Case: [2024] QSC 279
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited involved the plaintiff, who was employed by ROTC, working on the premises of Orica. The plaintiff sustained an injury to his left hand, leading to a claim against Orica. Orica settled the claim with the plaintiff, but sought to recover the settlement amount from ROTC, arguing that ROTC had breached a contractual obligation by failing to provide public liability insurance for Orica as required by clause 21.3 of their contract. The court had to determine whether ROTC had indeed breached the contract by not providing the specified insurance cover.

The central legal issue was whether clause 21.3 of the contract between ROTC and Orica obligated ROTC to hold public liability insurance for Orica. The court needed to interpret the contract, particularly clause 21.3, to ascertain the obligations of ROTC and whether there was a breach of contract by ROTC in failing to provide insurance cover for Orica. This involved a detailed analysis of the contract terms and the context in which they were applied.

The court found that clause 21.3 of the contract indeed imposed an obligation on ROTC to hold public liability insurance for Orica. This interpretation was based on the plain meaning of the contractual language and the context in which it was placed within the contract. Given that ROTC failed to provide the specified insurance cover, it was held that ROTC breached the contract. Consequently, the court ordered judgment in favour of Orica against ROTC for the amount of $227,421. The court also directed that the parties be heard on the form of the orders and on costs, including the costs claimed by Orica.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered for the second defendant against the first defendant/ third party in the sum of $227,421;

2. The parties be heard on the form of the orders and on costs, including the costs claimed in paragraph 13(b) of the second defendants’ pleading.

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.

CITATION:	Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited [2024] QSC 279
PARTIES:	ROBERT CLEMENT RUSBRIDGE (plaintiff) v LAKE FOX LIMITED ABN 47 010 563 596 trading as ROCKY’S OWN TRANSPORT CO (first defendant) AND ORICA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 99 004 117 828 (second defendant) AND LAKE FOX LIMITED ABN 47 010 563 596 trading as ROCKY’S OWN TRANSPORT CO (third party)
FILE NO:	BS 128/22
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 November 2024
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDERS:	1. Judgment be entered for the second defendant against the first defendant/ third party in the sum of $227,421; 2. The parties be heard on the form of the orders and on costs, including the costs claimed in paragraph 13(b) of the second defendants’ pleading.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – where the second defendant, Orica, and the first defendant/third party, ROTC, were parties to a contract where ROTC was to provide transport services to Orica – where the plaintiff was employed by ROTC but worked on Orica’s premises – where the plaintiff brought a claim for an injury sustained to his left hand on Orica’s premises – where Orica settled its claim with the plaintiff – where Orica claims that clause 21.3 of the contract requires ROTC to hold public liability insurance for Orica – whether ROTC breached the contract by not providing insurance cover for Orica Canberra Formwork Pty Ltd v Civil and Civic Ltd (1982) 67 FLR 66, cited DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423, cited Erect Safe Scaffolding v Sutton (2008) 72 NSWLR 1; [2008] NSWCA 114, distinguished GIO General Ltd v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 13, applied Heavy Plant Leasing Pty Ltd (in Liq) v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) (2022) 163 ACSR 562; [2022] NSWSC 1775, cited Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited
COUNSEL:	M R Hodge KC, with H L Lilley, for the second defendant B K Charrington KC, with D J Hinkley, for the first defendant/third party
SOLICITORS:	Clayton Utz for the second defendant Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers for the first defendant/third party