Snorkel Elevating Work Platforms Pty Limited v Borren Metal Forming Limited

Snorkel Elevating Work Platforms Pty Limited and Snorkel Elevating Work Platforms Limited (the appellants) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had entered judgment in favour of Borren Metal Forming Limited (the respondent). The underlying dispute arose from a claim for personal injuries by a worker, Michael Gerard Hay, who was injured when an elevating work platform collapsed due to the failure of a keeper pin. The appellants, who were involved in the manufacture and servicing of the platform, sought contribution from Borren, the manufacturer of the keeper pin, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in his findings regarding causation, both in contract and tort. Specifically, the appellants contended that the trial judge applied the wrong legal principles to determine if the under-strength keeper pin was a relevant cause of the accident. They argued that the onus should have shifted to Borren to prove that the accident would have occurred regardless of the defective pin, and that the trial judge’s finding that there was an "insurmountable gap" in the evidence regarding the forces exerted on the pin and the safety margin was erroneous.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that while a breach of contract and negligence were established in relation to the supply of an under-strength keeper pin, causation was not proven. The court reasoned that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the defective keeper pin was a cause of the hoist's collapse. There was no evidence of the force the pin was designed to withstand or the safety margin, making it impossible to conclude that a pin manufactured to specification would not have failed under the circumstances that led to the accident. The trial judge's finding that the chain of causation was not broken by subsequent events, such as an inspection, was upheld, but this did not overcome the fundamental lack of evidence on causation.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusion that causation could not be established was correct, despite the appellants' arguments regarding the onus of proof and the application of legal principles. The appellants' challenge to the factual findings of the trial judge was also unsuccessful.