Stephens v Giovenco; Dick v Giovenco

The proceedings involved claims for compensation brought by the relatives of a deceased handyman against a plumber and the property owner. The handyman had been electrocuted while working on a roof in the vicinity of a solar hot-water system that the plumber had decommissioned. The dispute centred on whether the plumber or the property owner, or both, owed a duty of care to the handyman, and whether any breach of such a duty caused his death. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with judgment delivered by Allsop P, Hodgson and Tobias JJA.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the plumber owed a duty of care to the handyman, and if so, whether a breach of that duty caused the handyman's death. Concurrently, the court considered whether the property owner owed a duty of care to the handyman, and if so, whether a breach of that duty caused his death. The court was also required to determine the apportionment of liability between the parties, if any.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders made by the trial judge. The court found that the plumber did not owe a duty of care to the handyman in the circumstances. The reasoning focused on the scope of the plumber's duty, which was limited to the work he performed and did not extend to anticipating the actions of a subsequent tradesperson in relation to an unrelated aspect of the property. The court also found that the property owner did not owe a duty of care to the handyman, as the owner had not been negligent in his dealings with the handyman. Consequently, the court entered verdicts and judgments in favour of the plumber and dismissed the handyman's cross-claim against the property owner. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the trial and the appeal.