Sulub v Tyres4U Pty Limited - [2018] WADC 139

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   SULUB -v- TYRES4U PTY LIMITED [2018] WADC 139
CORAM:   GLANCY DCJ
HEARD:   29 JANUARY 2018 - 2 FEBRUARY 2018
DELIVERED          :   28 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3654 of 2016
BETWEEN:   FARHAAN SULUB
Plaintiff
AND
TYRES4U PTY LIMITED
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Duty of care - Breach of duty - Nature of duty owed to employee of labour hire firm - Test for reasonable care - Safe system of work - Causation - Damages - Extent of injury - Assessment of quantum - Back injury - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (WA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T M Offer
Defendant	:	Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Vertannes Georgiou
Defendant	:	DLA Piper Australia - Perth

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 127; (1992) 176 CLR 408
City of Stirling v Tremeer (2006) 32 WAR 155
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Grainger v Williams [2009] WASCA 60
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Tort Reps 81‑192
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330
Sharman v Evans [1977] HCA 8; (1977) 138 CLR 563
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182
TA v Lucky Import & Export Co Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 65
Villasevil v Pickering (2001) 24 WAR 167
Waverley v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418
Winiarczyk v Tsirigotis [2011] WASCA 97
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40

GLANCY DCJ:

Overview

On 15 January 2015, Mr Sulub who was then 24 years old, was employed as a casual worker with a labour hire firm Randstad Pty Ltd (Randstad). He received a telephone communication on that day asking him to work the following day at the defendant's (Tyres4U Pty Ltd) tyre warehouse in Welshpool.
On 15 January 2015, Mr Sulub attended the defendant's premises in Welshpool. This was the first occasion on which he had been there to work. In the course of his work for the defendant that morning he was tasked with lifting and stacking truck tyres which were lying about the yard at the defendant's premises. While carrying out that task, Mr Sulub suffered an injury to his lower back (the Accident).
Mr Sulub commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages sustained as a result of the Accident.
The defendant disputes both liability and quantum.

Witnesses at trial

Mr Sulub gave…

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 Sulub v Tyres4U Pty Limited 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: [2018] WADC 139
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sulub v Tyres4U Pty Limited is a decision concerning a claim for damages based on negligence against a labour hire company. The plaintiff, Sulub, sought compensation for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Sulub alleged that Tyres4U Pty Limited breached their duty of care towards him, resulting in a back injury that significantly impacted his ability to work.

The primary legal issue was determining the specific nature of the duty of care owed by Tyres4U to Sulub, considering he was an employee of a labour hire firm. The court had to assess whether Tyres4U had a reasonable care obligation to implement a safe system of work, and whether this duty was breached, leading to Sulub's injury. Additionally, causation and the extent of the injury's impact on Sulub's ability to work were scrutinized to quantify the damages.

The court found that Tyres4U owed a duty of care to Sulub, considering the employer-employee relationship between the labour hire company and the hirer. It was established that Tyres4U had a responsibility to ensure a safe system of work was in place. The court determined that Tyres4U had breached this duty, leading to the injury. Regarding causation, it was concluded that the breach directly caused Sulub's injury. The court assessed the extent of the injury and its impact on Sulub's ability to work, leading to an award of damages.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ordered Tyres4U Pty Limited to pay damages to Sulub for the injuries sustained, considering the breach of duty and the impact on his ability to work. The specific amount of damages was determined based on the extent of the injury and its effects on Sulub's future employment prospects.

Orders