Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd - [2025] QCA 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 2

PARTIES:

LUKE ANDREW SAWYER
(appellant)
v
STEEPLECHASE PTY LTD
ACN 109 392 449
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10373 of 2024
SC No 8878 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 142 (Crowley J)

DELIVERED ON:

24 January 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2024

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Bradley J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The cross-appeal is dismissed.

3.   The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention (cross-appeal).

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – where the respondent was engaged by the owner of a home to undertake and manage a substantial renovation – where part of the work involved installing a polished concrete slab – where the respondent engaged a concreting company, Cretek, to undertake that work – where the concrete slab was to be constructed in accordance with engineering plans which identified a particular steel mesh to be used for the foundation – where the particular mesh, SL81, was a specialised product, weighed 105kg per sheet and was heavier than mesh usually used for concrete slabs – where the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) provided by Cretek to the respondent did not address lifting objects more than 55kg – where the appellant, an employee of Cretek, injured his back while working on the job site and brought a claim against the respondent and Cretek – where the appellant’s claim against Cretek succeeded, but his claim against the respondent was dismissed on the basis that no duty of care was owed – where the appellant submits that, because the SWMS did not address lifting objects more than 55kg, the respondent was put on notice that Cretek had not properly considered the risks associated with the job and, therefore, failed to ensure that Cretek was competent to perform the job in a safe way – where the appellant further submits the respondent breached its duty of care owed to him by failing to intervene, when its leading hand who was on-site at the time the injury occurred is alleged to have observed dangerous activity, and direct that the task cease being performed – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant – whether the trial judge erred in failing to determine that the respondent breached the duty of care the appellant submits it owed to him

Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35, cited
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1, cited

COUNSEL:

T A Nielsen, with S B Smith, for the appellant
G A Thompson KC, with M T O’Sullivan, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Brighton Langley Law for…

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 Sawyer v Steeplechase 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: [2025] QCA 2
Decision Date: 24 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, an employee of Cretek, brought a claim against the respondent, Steeplechase Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained on a job site during a renovation project. The appellant’s claim against Cretek succeeded, but the claim against the respondent was dismissed by the trial judge on the basis that no duty of care was owed. The appellant argued that the respondent should have been aware that Cretek had not properly considered the risks associated with the job, as evidenced by the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) provided by Cretek, which did not address lifting objects more than 55kg, despite the specialised steel mesh used weighing 105kg per sheet. The appellant also argued that the respondent breached its duty of care by not intervening when the on-site leading hand observed dangerous activity and directing that the task cease being performed.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to determine that the respondent breached the duty of care the appellant submitted it owed to him. The court considered the evidence and arguments presented, including the SWMS provided by Cretek, the specialised nature of the steel mesh used, and the respondent’s knowledge and control over the job site.

The court held that the trial judge was correct in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant. The court found that the respondent did not have control over the manner in which Cretek performed its work and, therefore, did not owe a duty of care to the appellant. The court also held that the trial judge was correct in finding that the respondent did not breach any duty of care it may have owed to the appellant. The court found that there was no evidence that the respondent was aware of the dangerous activity or that it had the ability to intervene and direct the task to cease being performed.

The appeal is dismissed, and the cross-appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, but there is no order as to the costs of the notice of contention (cross-appeal).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The cross-appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention (cross-appeal).

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:	Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 2
PARTIES:	LUKE ANDREW SAWYER (appellant) v STEEPLECHASE PTY LTD ACN 109 392 449 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10373 of 2024 SC No 8878 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 142 (Crowley J)
DELIVERED ON:	24 January 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 November 2024
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Bradley J
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The cross-appeal is dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention (cross-appeal).
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – where the respondent was engaged by the owner of a home to undertake and manage a substantial renovation – where part of the work involved installing a polished concrete slab – where the respondent engaged a concreting company, Cretek, to undertake that work – where the concrete slab was to be constructed in accordance with engineering plans which identified a particular steel mesh to be used for the foundation – where the particular mesh, SL81, was a specialised product, weighed 105kg per sheet and was heavier than mesh usually used for concrete slabs – where the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) provided by Cretek to the respondent did not address lifting objects more than 55kg – where the appellant, an employee of Cretek, injured his back while working on the job site and brought a claim against the respondent and Cretek – where the appellant’s claim against Cretek succeeded, but his claim against the respondent was dismissed on the basis that no duty of care was owed – where the appellant submits that, because the SWMS did not address lifting objects more than 55kg, the respondent was put on notice that Cretek had not properly considered the risks associated with the job and, therefore, failed to ensure that Cretek was competent to perform the job in a safe way – where the appellant further submits the respondent breached its duty of care owed to him by failing to intervene, when its leading hand who was on-site at the time the injury occurred is alleged to have observed dangerous activity, and direct that the task cease being performed – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant – whether the trial judge erred in failing to determine that the respondent breached the duty of care the appellant submits it owed to him Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35, cited Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1, cited
COUNSEL:	T A Nielsen, with S B Smith, for the appellant G A Thompson KC, with M T O’Sullivan, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Brighton Langley Law for…