Legal Research
Cases
Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd

Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 20 September 1967 37 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan A.C.J., Kitto, Taylor, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

SOVAR v. HENRY LANE PTY. LTD.

(1967) 116 CLR 397

20 September 1967

Factories and Shops—Statutory Duties

Factories and Shops—Dangerous machinery—Fencing—Failure to maintain in position in efficient state whilst machinery in use—Statutory defence to prosecution—Whether defence to civil action—Factories, Shops and Industries Act, 1962 (N.S.W.), s. 27 (1) (d), (5).* Statutory Duties—Breach—Statutory defence to prosecution—Whether answer to civil action.

Decisions

September 20.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
MCTIERNAN A.C.J. This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales overruling demurrers by the plaintiff to the pleas of the defendant to a count in the plaintiff's declaration, which is based on the Factories, Shops and Industries Act, 1962 (N.S.W.). The action in which the appeal arises is pending in the Supreme Court. The relevant statutory provisions are in s. 27 of the Act. The count alleges breach of s. 27, sub-s. (1) (d). The pleas are based on s. 27, sub-s. (5). The Court of Appeal decided that the matters alleged in the several pleas constitute a defence to the count. The appeal is brought with the leave of this Court. The plaintiff calls in question the decision of the Court of Appeal. An object expressed in the long title of the Act is to make provision with respect to supervision and regulation of factories and to the safety of persons employed therein. Section 27 is in Div. 5, of Pt III of the Act. This Division is entitled "Safety (Factories)". Sub-section (1) contains safety provisions laying duties on occupiers of factories. Section 4, sub-s. (1), defines "occupier". It is sufficient to say that the expression applies to the employer of persons working in a factory. "Factory" is defined by the same sub-section. Section 27, sub-s. (1), so far as material provides: - "The occupier of a factory shall securely fence all dangerous parts of the machinery therein, and with respect to such fencing the following provisions shall have effect - . . . (d) all fencing shall be constantly maintained in position in an efficient state while the parts required to be fenced are in motion or use." Section 27, sub-s. (2), provides: - "The duty imposed on the occupier of a factory by this section shall be an absolute duty, in no way qualified by any other provision of this Act." Section 27, sub-s. (4), provides: - "Any occupier of a factory who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection one of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a penalty not exceeding three hundred pounds." Section 27, sub-s. (5), provides: - "In any prosecution for a breach of the obligation imposed on an occupier by paragraph (d) of sub-section one of this section it shall be a defence if the defendant proves that -

(a) the parts required to be fenced were necessarily exposed while in motion…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd 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: [1967] HCA 31
Decision Date: 20 September 1967

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between Sovar (the appellant) and Henry Lane Pty Ltd (the respondent). The core of the disagreement concerned the respondent's liability for injuries sustained by the appellant, who was an employee of a company that had contracted with the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent had breached its duty of care in failing to ensure the safety of the premises where the appellant was working.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to determine the nature and extent of the duty owed by a principal contractor to an employee of a sub-contractor working on the principal contractor's premises, and whether the respondent had taken reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to the appellant.

The High Court, in its reasoning, affirmed that a principal contractor can owe a duty of care to employees of sub-contractors. The court analysed the relationship between the parties and the control exercised by the respondent over the site. It was held that the respondent had failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the appellant, particularly in relation to the condition of the floor where the accident occurred. The principles of negligence, including the foreseeability of harm and the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid that harm, were applied.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondent liable for the appellant's injuries. The court ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales be set aside and that the matter be remitted to that court for the assessment of damages.

Orders