Smith v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd t/as Coles Distribution Centre; Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] NSWCA 206
•04 September 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Smith v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd t/as Coles Distribution Centre; Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 206
[2020] NSWCA 206
04 September 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a worker, Mr Smith, who was injured while working at a Coles Distribution Centre. Mr Smith brought proceedings against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) alleging negligence. Ready Workforce (a division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd, the labour-hire company that employed Mr Smith, also brought a cross-claim against Coles. The primary judge found that Coles had discharged its duty of care and was not negligent. The appeal was heard by Leeming JA, Emmett AJA, and Adamson J of the Court of Appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in failing to address the case as presented by the parties, specifically regarding the non-provision of a "pick stick" as a means to avoid the risk of injury. The court was also required to determine whether Coles was negligent and whether Mr Smith had been contributorily negligent. In relation to the cross-claim, the court considered whether damages should have been awarded to Ready Workforce for costs incurred in defending the claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The judges found that the primary judge had adequately addressed the case put by the parties and that the conclusion that Coles had discharged its duty of care was open on the evidence. The court affirmed the primary judge's finding that the non-provision of a pick stick did not constitute negligence on the part of Coles. Consequently, the appeals brought by Mr Smith and Ready Workforce were dismissed.
The appeals were dismissed with costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in failing to address the case as presented by the parties, specifically regarding the non-provision of a "pick stick" as a means to avoid the risk of injury. The court was also required to determine whether Coles was negligent and whether Mr Smith had been contributorily negligent. In relation to the cross-claim, the court considered whether damages should have been awarded to Ready Workforce for costs incurred in defending the claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The judges found that the primary judge had adequately addressed the case put by the parties and that the conclusion that Coles had discharged its duty of care was open on the evidence. The court affirmed the primary judge's finding that the non-provision of a pick stick did not constitute negligence on the part of Coles. Consequently, the appeals brought by Mr Smith and Ready Workforce were dismissed.
The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Contract Law
-
Employment Law
Legal Concepts
-
Negligence
-
Duty of Care
-
Causation
-
Damages
-
Breach
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Paetzold v At Beach Court Holiday Villas Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 35
Cases Cited
41
Statutory Material Cited
8
Allianz v Waterbrook
[2009] NSWCA 224
Allianz v Waterbrook
[2009] NSWCA 224
Anderson v Eric Anderson Radio & TV Pty Ltd
[1965] HCA 61