Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd

Case [2023] QSC 166


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd and anor [2023] QSC 166
PARTIES:

STEVEN SPEZIALI

(plaintiff)
v
NORTASK PTY LTD

(first defendant) and

DALBY BIO-REFINERY LIMITED

(second defendant)

FILENO: BS1557/21
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Claim
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON: 1 August 2023
DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane
HEARINGDATE: 6 – 8 March 2023
JUDGE: Hindman J
ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of the sum of $899,254.00 [inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $355,177.33 and the common law rehabilitation refund of $15,934.55].

2.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $1,341,573.00 (comprising $899,254.00 [inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $355,177.33 and the common law rehabilitation refund of $15,934.55] plus $442,319.00 on account of past and future care).

3.   The aforementioned damages of $899,254.00 are apportioned between the defendants as 25% to Nortask, 75% to DBRL.

4.   The parties provide either an agreed proposed costs order or written submissions on costs within 14 days.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK – BREACH OF DUTY – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – BREACH OF CONTRACT  –  DAMAGES  –  CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE – where plaintiff slipped and fell from a ladder onto concrete slab – whether risk of injury foreseeable –

whether the defendants owed duty of care to provide a safe system of work – whether the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout so as to avoid injury – whether damages can be reduced for contributory negligence – where defendants failed to provide a safe system of work – whether plaintiff contributed to injuries

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – EMPLOYER AND

EMPLOYEE – where plaintiff suffered personal injury when carrying out duties – where plaintiff brings proceedings against defendants – where risk of injury was foreseeable – where risk of injury was not insignificant – where a reasonable person would have taken precautions against the risk of injury – whether the defendants breached duty to take all reasonable steps to avoid exposing plaintiff to a foreseeable risk of injury

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION –

CAUSATION – whether the plaintiff’s injury was the result of a breach of a duty of care by employer – whether the access system by way of a ladder was compliant with Australian Standards

TORTS   –   NEGLIGENCE   –   CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff suffered personal injury when carrying out a task – whether plaintiff failed to take precautions against the risk of injury – whether there ought to be a finding of contributory negligence

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT - PERSONAL INJURY – where

plaintiff slipped on ladder –what measure of damages for general damages

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PAIN AND SUFFERING  –  QUANTUM  –  LOSS  OF  EARNING

CAPACITY – whether plaintiff continues to suffer problems as a result of the accident – whether there is a loss…

Continue reading Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 166
Case
[2023] QSC 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Speziali, who brought proceedings against the defendants, Nortask Pty Ltd and DBRL, for injuries sustained from slipping and falling off a ladder onto a concrete slab. The dispute centred on whether the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work, whether the plaintiff contributed to his injuries, and the appropriate measure of damages. The legal issues included whether the defendants owed a duty of care to provide a safe system of work, whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions, and the extent to which damages should be reduced for contributory negligence.

The court held that the risk of injury was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable person would have taken precautions. The defendants breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work, as the ladder access system did not comply with Australian Standards. The court found that the plaintiff also contributed to his injuries by failing to take reasonable precautions, resulting in a reduction of damages for contributory negligence. The court assessed the damages for general damages, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity, ultimately awarding the plaintiff $899,254.00 against the first defendant and $1,341,573.00 against the second defendant. The damages were apportioned between the defendants, with Nortask liable for 25% and DBRL for 75%.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. The court apportioned liability between the defendants based on their respective contributions to the plaintiff's injuries. The final orders included judgments for the plaintiff against both defendants, with specific amounts awarded and apportioned. The court also directed the parties to provide an agreed proposed costs order or written submissions on costs within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of the sum of $899,254.00 [inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $355,177.33 and the common law rehabilitation refund of $15,934.55].

2. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $1,341,573.00 (comprising $899,254.00 [inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $355,177.33 and the common law rehabilitation refund of $15,934.55] plus $442,319.00 on account of past and future care).

3. The aforementioned damages of $899,254.00 are apportioned between the defendants as 25% to Nortask, 75% to DBRL.

4. The parties provide either an agreed proposed costs order or written submissions on costs within 14 days.

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

Full text does not contain this section.