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 4597/97MASON P
HEYDON JA
YOUNG CJ in EQ
Tuesday 13 November 2001
WON BAE YI v THE SERVICE ARENA PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT
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.
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.
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”.
In this context he enrolled with the respondent to…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] NSWCA 481
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: YOUNG CJ
Full text does not contain this section.