Scott & v McMahon & 2 Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:      YI v  THE SERVICE ARENA PTY LTD [2001]  NSWCA 400

FILE NUMBER(S):
40199/01

HEARING DATE(S):               26 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/11/2001

PARTIES:
WON BAE YI v THE SERVICE ARENA PTY LTD

JUDGMENT OF:       Mason P Heydon JA Young CJ in Eq   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):          DC 4597/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Price DCJ

COUNSEL:
Appellant: R F Sutherland SC/ J W Ingram
Respondent: L King SC/  M J Jenkins

SOLICITORS:
Appellant: D Stanefska & Associates
Respondent: P W Turk & Associates

CATCHWORDS:
Negligence - Duty of Care - respondent training provider under Agreement with Commonwealth DEET - appellant attended furniture factory for work experience - back injury through heavy lifting - scope of respondent's duty of care - whether breach of duty - reasonableness of steps taken to prepare appellant - whether foreseeable risk of injury - whether non-delegable duty of care - no breach of ordinary duty of care established - no non-delegable duty. (ND)

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA  40199/2001
DC 4597/97

MASON P
HEYDON JA
YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 13 November 2001

WON BAE YI v THE SERVICE ARENA PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

  1. MASON P:  In 1994 the respondent was a training provider operating under an Agreement with the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training.  Its core obligation was to conduct a training course according to departmental guidelines for people seeking to enter or re-enter the work force.  The Agreement contemplated that trainees would be given “work experience/observation” arranged by the respondent.

  2. The appellant was aged 31 at the time.  He had lived in Australia since he was 17.  He spent a short time at school before embarking upon a wide range of jobs, most of them involving manual work of one kind or another.  Between 1981 and 1986 he had jobs as a machine-operator for a liquid paper manufacturer, at a printing company, as a kitchen hand, a grocery delivery man, a plumber’s labourer and a cleaner.  Between 1987 and 1989 he worked as a machine-operator doing occasional moderate to heavy lifting.  In about 1990 he hurt his back while lifting a metal roll but was able to return to work after about two days off.  He worked as a machine-operator between 1990 and 1992.  He played soccer between 1982 and 1992.  In 1993 he ran his own business repairing car radiators, but this business failed after about six months.  He then went onto unemployment benefits.

  3. In early 1994 he attended Bankstown TAFE College for about three months, doing an adult basic education course.  On 30 June 1994 he entered into a Job Search/New Start Activity Agreement.  This contract with the Commonwealth sought to make his entitlement to particular Commonwealth benefits conditional upon him making genuine attempts to obtain employment, including embarkation upon a “Return to Work Plan”.

  4. In this context he enrolled with the respondent to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott & v McMahon & 2 Ors 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
[2001] NSWCA 481
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Scott, brought proceedings against the respondent, McMahon & 2 Ors, a training provider, alleging negligence. Scott sustained a back injury while undertaking work experience at a furniture factory, an arrangement facilitated by the respondent under an agreement with the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The dispute centred on whether the respondent owed Scott a duty of care and, if so, whether that duty was breached.

The court was required to determine the scope of the respondent's duty of care to the appellant, particularly in the context of placing the appellant in a work experience environment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent breached its duty by failing to take reasonable steps to prepare the appellant for the risks associated with heavy lifting in the furniture factory, and whether the risk of injury was foreseeable. The court also considered whether the respondent owed a non-delegable duty of care to the appellant.

The court found that the respondent did not breach its ordinary duty of care. It reasoned that the steps taken by the respondent to prepare the appellant were reasonable in the circumstances, and the risk of injury from heavy lifting was not sufficiently foreseeable to warrant further preventative measures. Furthermore, the court determined that no non-delegable duty of care was established in this instance.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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

YOUNG CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: YOUNG CJ

Full text does not contain this section.