SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142
PARTIES:
LUKE ANDREW SAWYER
(plaintiff)
v
STEEPLECHASE PTY LTD (ACN 109 392 449)(first defendant)
JOEL QUILLAN AND LINDA QUILLAN AS TRUSTEES FOR THE QUILLAN FAMILY TRUST (ABN 46 863 745 686)
(second defendant)
CRETEK PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ABN 83 613 339 423)
(third defendant)
FILE NO/S:
8878 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 July 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5 February 2024; 6 February 2024; 7 February 2024; 8 February 2024; 9 February 2024; 12 February 2024; 13 February 2024
JUDGE:
Crowley J
ORDERS:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for the amount of $781,082.09.
2. The plaintiff’s claims against the first defendant and the third defendant are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – AT COMMON LAW – where the plaintiff claims he injured his back carrying steel mesh sheets (‘first incident’) at a residential renovation project in 2016 (‘job site’) – where the plaintiff was an employee of the second defendant at the time of the first incident – where the first defendant was the principal contractor for the job site – where the first defendant contracted the second defendant to undertake concreting works at the job site – where the second defendant was supplied with the engineering plans – where the plaintiff claims the first defendant had a duty of care as the occupier of land – where obligations are owed under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 (Qld) and other safety standards – where the first defendant had organised an activity involving a risk of injury – where the operation of the activity was the responsibility of the second defendant – whether the first defendant as the principal contractor had a duty to take reasonable care to supervise and monitor and ensure a safe system of work for specialised work by independent contractors
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – CAUSATION – where the plaintiff ultimately sustained a prolapsed disc at the L5/S1 and experience impingement of the right side S1 nerve root – where the first and second defendant say the plaintiff has a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition – where the plaintiff continued to have back pain and ‘flare ups’ after the first incident – where the plaintiff sometimes completed ‘lighter duties’ after the first incident – where the plaintiff otherwise performed his usual concreter duties – where the plaintiff sustained further injury in 2017 (‘second incident’) – where the plaintiff did not did not see a health practitioner until after the second incident – where the third defendant had taken over the running of the plaintiff’s employer at the time of the second incident – where there were issues with the plaintiff’s credibility and reliability – whether the second incident and the symptoms the plaintiff…
Continue reading Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142
- Case
- [2024] QSC 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether Steeplechase, as the principal contractor, owed a duty of care to supervise and ensure a safe system of work for the specialised tasks performed by independent contractors, and whether the second defendant's breach of duty was a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, their causation, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and subsequent events contributed to or exacerbated his injuries, as well as the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence regarding his care needs and future work capacity.
The court found that Steeplechase did not owe a duty of care to supervise the second defendant's work, as the risks associated with the specialised tasks were the responsibility of the second defendant. The court also determined that the second defendant's breach of duty was not a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injuries, as the evidence suggested that the plaintiff's condition had deteriorated regardless of the first incident. Regarding damages, the court assessed the plaintiff's injury as a serious permanent impairment, but found that his residual earning capacity was not significantly reduced. The court awarded the plaintiff $781,082.09 in damages against the second defendant, while dismissing the plaintiff's claims against Steeplechase and the third defendant.
The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant for the amount of $781,082.09. The plaintiff's claims against the first and third defendants were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for the amount of $781,082.09.
2. The plaintiff’s claims against the first defendant and the third defendant are dismissed.
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.