SMYBB Pty Ltd v Young - [2022] VSCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2021 0103

SMYBB PTY LTD (T/AS BEST BOTTLERS PTY LTD)	Applicant
v
STEPHEN YOUNG	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, McLEISH and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 June 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 115
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VSC 445 (Forbes J)

---

TORT – Negligence – Breach of statutory duty – Causation – Process worker sustained shoulder and elbow injury cutting plastic from pallet with blunt knife – Experienced worker aware of how and when to rotate and change knife blade – No evidence that worker unaware of risks of using blunt blade – Whether employer’s breach of common law or statutory duty caused injury – Claimant bears burden of proving causal connection between breach and damage – Employer’s failure to adopt training, instruction and blade storage measures identified by claimant at trial not causally linked to damage – New case advanced by claimant on appeal unsupported by evidence and inappropriate to consider – Appeal allowed.

Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 rr 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3.

Duyvelshaff v Cathcart & Ritchie Ltd (1973) 1 ALR 125, Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Royal (2008) 245 ALR 653, Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1, followed; Deal v Kodakkathanath (2016) 258 CLR 281, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr P H Solomon QC with Mr S E Gladman
Respondent:		Mr C W R Harrison QC with Mr C S O’Sullivan
Solicitors
Applicant:	Hall & Wilcox
Respondent:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

BEACH JA
MCLEISH JA
KENNEDY JA:

The applicant is a wine-packaging company. It employed the respondent as a full-time process worker at its premises in Mildura where he worked with a machine that removed wine bottles from the pallets on which they were stored. His work duties included using a ‘duck knife’ to cut plastic straps and wrapping from the pallets of bottles before they were processed by the machine.[1] The applicant issued the respondent with a duck knife, which he stored in his locker between shifts.[2]
[1]Young v SMYBB Pty Ltd (t/as Best Bottlers Pty Ltd) [2021] VSC 445 [8]–[12] (‘Reasons’).
[2]Ibid [58].
Over time, the task of cutting the plastic straps and wrapping gradually blunted the cutting edge of the blade in the knife. Cutting the straps could also damage the blade by taking chunks out of it.[3] Each blade usually lasted between six and eight weeks.[4] When the cutting edge became blunt, the respondent would open the knife and rotate the blade to expose a new cutting edge. That could be done three times. On the next occasion, the respondent would have to ask his supervisor for a replacement blade.[5] The blades were stored in the supervisor’s office, which was a short distance away from the production area. The supervisor was usually able to provide the respondent with replacement blades on request, but on rare occasions was unable to locate one in the office.[6]
[3]Ibid [19],…

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.

Continue reading SMYBB Pty Ltd v Young

Details

AGLC: SMYBB Pty Ltd v Young [2022] VSCA 115
Case: [2022] VSCA 115
Decision Date: 21 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SMYBB Pty Ltd, a company engaged in the pallet industry, was sued by one of its employees, Mr. Young, who alleged that he sustained a shoulder and elbow injury while cutting plastic from a pallet with a blunt knife. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the case was whether the employer's alleged breach of a common law or statutory duty resulted in the worker's injury. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the employer's failure to adopt specific training, instruction, and blade storage measures, identified by the claimant, was causally linked to the injury.

The court examined the legal principles governing causation in negligence cases, holding that the claimant bears the burden of proving a causal connection between the breach and the damage. The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the worker was unaware of the risks associated with using a blunt knife. The claimant's argument that the employer's failure to implement certain measures led to the injury was rejected, as the claimant could not establish a causal link between the employer's actions and the injury. The court also dismissed the new case advanced by the claimant on appeal, as it was unsupported by evidence and inappropriate to consider.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision in favour of the claimant was overturned. The court held that the employer was not liable for the worker's injury. The case underscores the importance of establishing a causal link between a breach and an injury in negligence cases, as well as the need for claimants to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The decision serves as a reminder to employers and employees alike of the importance of adhering to safety regulations and taking reasonable care to prevent injuries in the workplace.

Orders