Stephen John Roberts v DRB Holdings Pty Ltd - [2013] ACTSC 268

STEPHEN JOHN ROBERTS v DRB HOLDINGS PTY LTD
[2013] ACTSC 268 (20 December 2013)

NEGLIGENCE – contributory negligence – plaintiff injured lifting pressure cleaner – where plaintiff had supervisory responsibilities – availability of alternative methods of lifting – employer failed to enforce system for lifting heavy items – no significant failure by plaintiff to take reasonable care

DAMAGES – personal injury – lower back injury – plaintiff lifting heavy weight – injury to L5-S1 disc – consequential chronic depression

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 45, 102

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Stepanovic v GIO (1995) 21 MVR 327
Stove v Hall [2008] ACTCA 21
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422

No. SC 784 of 2010

Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 20 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 784 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:STEPHEN JOHN ROBERTS
Plaintiff

AND:DRB HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Mossop
Date:  20 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,399,341.

2. Unless either party notifies my associate within 21 days of the date of these orders that it wishes to be heard in relation to costs, the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

The plaintiff has claimed damages for an injury which he sustained at work on 27 November 2007 when he was lifting a pressure cleaner into a van. The defendant operated a business which traded as DRB Equipment Repairs. That business was a small engine repair business which repaired items such as lawnmowers, pressure washers, chainsaws, leaf blowers and other types of small mechanical equipment.

The plaintiff, who was almost 50 at the time of the hearing, had initially completed an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic and worked in a variety of jobs in the automotive industry in both ‘hands on’ and supervisory roles. On 7 June 2007 he commenced employment with the defendant. He was offered the job by Darren Bookham, the director of the defendant, whom the plaintiff had known previously. The plaintiff was employed as the workshop manager at the defendant’s premises. In that role he dealt with phone bookings, invoicing clients, controlling the workflow, ordering parts and repairing items himself. There were three other employees apart from the plaintiff and Mr Bookham meaning that in total there were five people engaged in the business who worked at the defendant’s premises in Lyell Street, Fyshwick.

On 27 November 2007 the plaintiff was loading a pressure cleaner into the side door of a commercial van. The van was a Toyota Hiace or similar which belonged to ACTEW – the government owned supplier of water and electricity in the Territory. There were two ACTEW employees also participating in…

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 Stephen John Roberts v DRB Holdings 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: [2013] ACTSC 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stephen John Roberts v DRB Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 268, the plaintiff, Stephen John Roberts, sought damages for injuries sustained at work when he lifted a pressure cleaner into a van. The defendant, DRB Holdings Pty Ltd, operated a small engine repair business and employed the plaintiff as a workshop manager. The plaintiff's injury occurred when he lifted the pressure cleaner into the van, causing a pain in his lower back and a burning sensation. Medical evidence established that the plaintiff suffered an injury to his L5-S1 disc, resulting in chronic back pain and depression. The defendant did not dispute liability but argued for a reduction in damages due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court found that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to implement a safe system of work, but it did not establish that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. Consequently, there was no reduction in damages due to contributory negligence.

The court awarded damages for general damages, past economic loss, future economic loss, superannuation, future out-of-pocket expenses, domestic assistance, and domestic services. The total damages awarded were $1,399,341. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings unless either party notified the associate within 21 days of the date of these orders that they wished to be heard in relation to costs.

Orders