Legal Research
Cases
Stratton v Van Driel Ltd

Stratton v Van Driel Ltd

Case [1998] VSC 75 25 September 1998

Duty of Care

Occupational Health and Safety

Independent Contractor

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 4934 of 1998

In the Matter of an Appeal

under Section 92 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989

KENNETH PETER STRATTON	Appellant
v
VAN DRIEL LIMITED	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Byrne, J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 September 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSC 75

---

EMPLOYMENT - occupational health and safety - duty is owed to independent contractor
- “matters over which employer has control” - building site.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 s. 21(1), (3)(b)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P.G. Priest	Victoria WorkCover Authority
For the Respondent	Mr P. Tehan QC and	Craig Terrill & Associates
Mr S. Russell

HIS HONOUR:

On 15 September 1995 Barrie Baum, a roofing plumber employed by the firm of roofing contractors Signal & Hobbs, slipped and fell when climbing down a ladder on a building site and, as a result, suffered serious injury. The accident occurred on the site of the new Dandenong Club in Dandenong where Signal & Hobbs and was engaged by the Respondent, Van Driel Ltd, to supply and fix roofing and associated work.
As a result of this incident the appellant, Kenneth Peter Stratton, an inspector appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, on 23 July 1997, laid three informations against Van Driel alleging breaches of the Act. The third charge is not before me and I shall say nothing further about it. The first and second charges were in identical terms:
“On or about 15 September 1995 at the corner of Stud Road and Heatherton Road, Dandenong you were pursuant to s. 47 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 guilty of an offence against that Act in that being an employer you did fail to provide and maintain so far as was practicable for employees a working environment that was safe and without risks to health when you did fail to provide and maintain plant and systems of work that were so far as was practicable safe and were without risks to health, in contravention of ss.21(1) and 21(2)(a) of Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985.”
In each case the particulars given by the appellant show that the system of work of which complaint was made was the same, namely, “the system of work for constructing box guttering on a newly constructed roof at the said address”. The allegation of unsafe system particularised under the first charge was a non- compliance with paragraph 2.1(c) of the Code of Practice for Safe Working on Roofs approved by the Minister under s. 55(1) of the Act, and that under the second charged was the non-compliance with paragraph 2.1.1(j) of the same code. Each of these paragraphs of the code deals with methods to be adopted to protect against injury through falling.
The charges were heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Dandenong on 23 and 24 February 1998. No transcript of the proceeding…

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 Stratton v Van Driel Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stratton v Van Driel Ltd [1998] VSC 75
Case: [1998] VSC 75
Decision Date: 25 September 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stratton v Van Driel Ltd involved the plaintiff, Stratton, who was injured while working on a building site under an independent contractor's arrangement with the defendant, Van Driel Ltd. Stratton sued Van Driel Ltd for breach of occupational health and safety obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. The primary legal issue was whether Van Driel Ltd owed a duty of care to Stratton, who was not directly employed by them but was under their control in certain respects. The court needed to determine if the Act imposed such a duty on the employer towards an independent contractor.

The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly sections 21(1) and 3(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, which address the employer's duty to ensure the safety of workers under their control. The court held that the duty extended to situations where the employer has control over the work environment, even if the worker is an independent contractor. The reasoning hinged on the interpretation of "matters over which the employer has control" and whether this included the provision of a safe working environment for those indirectly employed. The court concluded that Van Driel Ltd did owe a duty of care to Stratton, given their control over the site and the activities being performed there.

The court found in favour of Stratton, establishing that an employer can be held liable for the safety of independent contractors on their site if they have control over the environment in which the contractors operate. The decision underscores the broad interpretation of the statutory duty to ensure safety, extending beyond direct employees to include those indirectly employed or engaged under a contractor's arrangement. The court's judgment reinforces the importance of occupational health and safety provisions in protecting workers, regardless of their employment status.

Orders