Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd

Case [2004] NSWCA 449


CITATION: Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions P/L & Anor [2004] NSWCA 449
HEARING DATE(S): 30 July 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Santow JA at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal of both respondents.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - the appellant claimed damages for back injuries allegedly suffered in two separate incidents with successive employers - extent of duty of employer to provide a safe system of work and equipment - extent of duty of employer to make inquiries as to employee's health - extent of duty of employer which knows or ought to know of particular susceptibility of employee - breach of duty - whether system of work unreasonably exposed appellant to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury - whether system of work inherently unsafe. - EVIDENCE - burden of proof - proof of negligence - sufficiency of evidence - whether common sense requires a finding of negligence - findings of fact based on credibility of appellant. - PROCEDURE - Appeal and new trial - Adequacy of reasons - extent of duty of trial judge to give reasons - circumstances in which new trial required.
LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987 s151G-H
CASES CITED: Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Bailey (by his next friend Bergin) v Baltoro Holdings Pty Ltd (WASC Full Court, 25 September 1998, unreported)
Bankstown Foundry Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Blackman v Commonwealth (1978) 20 ACTR 33
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Pty Ltd (1962) 108 CLR 362
NSW Land & Housing Corporation v Watkins (2002) Aust Torts R 81-641
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Pitsiavas v John Lysaght (Aust) Pty Ltd [1962] NSWR 1500
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Shorey v PT Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1104
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1314
Uehlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Pty Ltd (1963) 80 WN (NSW) 1600
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Zhang v Andrew Pine Furniture Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 250

PARTIES :

Paul STOKER (Appellant)
ADECCO GEMVALE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (First Respondent)
ALLMEN INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (Second Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41175/03
COUNSEL: D T KENNEDY, SC/ D E ANDREWS (Appellant)
D P M O'DOWD (First Respondent)
D G T NOCK, SC/ W P Y AUSTRON (Second Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Rishworth Dodd & Co (Appellant)
Gillis, Delaney, Brown (First Respondent)
Leigh Virtue & Associates (Second…

Continue reading Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 449
Case
[2004] NSWCA 449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Stoker, brought a claim for damages against his successive employers, Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd and another respondent, alleging back injuries sustained in two separate incidents. The appeal concerned the extent of an employer's duty to provide a safe system of work and equipment, to make inquiries as to an employee's health, and to take precautions when aware of an employee's particular susceptibility. The appeal also touched upon the burden of proof in negligence claims, the sufficiency of evidence, and the adequacy of a trial judge's reasons for judgment.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the employers had breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work and equipment, thereby exposing the appellant to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. The court also considered whether the system of work was inherently unsafe and whether the employers ought to have made further inquiries into the appellant's health, particularly given any known or suspected susceptibility. Furthermore, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons in relation to these findings of fact, which were heavily influenced by the credibility of the appellant, was a key point of contention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact, including those based on the appellant's credibility, were not demonstrably wrong. The court held that the evidence did not establish that the employers had breached their duty of care. The appeal was dismissed with costs ordered in favour of both respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal of both respondents.

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.