Legal Research
Cases
Srbinovski v Americold Logistics Ltd

Srbinovski v Americold Logistics Ltd

Case [2015] VSCA 139 10 June 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0094

TOM SRBINOVSKI	Appellant
v
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, TATE JA and DIGBY AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 February 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 139
ORDERS APPEALED FROM:	Orders of Judge Brookes dated 30 July 2014.

---

TORT – Negligence – Jury trial – Award of damages – Jury verdict in favour of appellant for $50,000 – Whether assessment of damages open to jury on evidence most favourable to the respondent – Whether comments by counsel for the respondent at trial was likely to mislead the jury – Whether attack on appellant’s credit at trial was likely to mislead the jury – Jury’s assessment of damages was open to jury on evidence adduced – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A J Keogh SC with Mr S J A Jurica	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Respondent	M S A O’Meara QC with Mr M J Hopper	Thomson Geer

THE COURT:

Tom Srbinovski, the appellant (the plaintiff at trial), commenced an action for pain and suffering damages as a result of an injury he sustained while working for Americold Logistics Ltd, the respondent (the defendant at trial).

The appellant’s proceeding came on for trial at the County Court before a judge and jury of six. At trial, the appellant alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the respondent. The jury returned a verdict in favour of the appellant for $50,000. On the same day, judgment was entered for the appellant for the sum of $50,000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, with liberty to apply. Subsequently, pursuant to s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act1985, the trial judge varied the previous orders reducing the damages for pain and suffering to nil, and ordered judgment for the respondent with an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

The appellant appeals the jury verdict and consequential orders of the trial judge.

Background

The respondent is a logistics company that specialises in temperature controlled warehousing and transport. The appellant is a 41 year old man who worked for the respondent between 1999 and 2010. During that time he was a factory worker employed at the respondent’s factories in Laverton and Maidstone. The appellant’s work included picking up and moving boxes of chilled or frozen goods from conveyers and onto pallets ready to be packed and distributed. At trial, the appellant gave evidence that his role included twisting, turning, and in some cases bending.

On 30 April 2009 the appellant was working the morning shift at the Laverton factory when he began to experience pain in his lower back. The appellant gave evidence that he was picking up a relatively heavy box of either butter or orange juice, and he twisted to his right and felt a ‘symptom of pain’ in his lower…

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 Srbinovski v Americold Logistics Ltd

Details

AGLC: Srbinovski v Americold Logistics Ltd [2015] VSCA 139
Case: [2015] VSCA 139
Decision Date: 10 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Srbinovski v Americold Logistics Ltd, the appellant, Srbinovski, appealed against the damages awarded to him by a jury in a negligence claim. The appellant claimed damages for injuries sustained in an incident that occurred at the respondent's premises. The trial resulted in a verdict in favour of the appellant, awarding him $50,000 in damages. The respondent appealed the amount of damages, arguing that the jury's assessment of damages was not open to them on the evidence presented. The respondent also argued that comments made by the appellant's counsel during the trial were likely to mislead the jury and that the attack on the appellant's credit was also likely to mislead the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's assessment of damages was open to them on the evidence presented, whether the comments made by counsel during the trial were likely to mislead the jury, and whether the attack on the appellant's credit was likely to mislead the jury. The court also had to consider whether the appeal raised a point of principle.

The court found that the jury's assessment of damages was open to them on the evidence presented. The court noted that the evidence was such that a jury acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the amount of damages awarded. The court also found that the comments made by counsel during the trial were not likely to mislead the jury, and that the attack on the appellant's credit did not prejudice the respondent's case. The court held that the appeal did not raise a point of principle and dismissed the appeal.

The court's final orders were that the appeal was dismissed, and the damages awarded to the appellant were upheld. The court found that the jury's assessment of damages was reasonable on the evidence presented, and that the comments made by counsel during the trial and the attack on the appellant's credit did not prejudice the respondent's case. The court held that the appeal did not raise a point of principle, and therefore, the damages awarded to the appellant were upheld.

Orders