Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd - [2023] ACTSC 390

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 390
Hearing Dates:	4-7 December 2023
Decision Date:	14 December 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [136].
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury claim arising from fault in roller doors – chain box for roller door fell off building and onto plaintiff’s head – weld affixing chain box to building failed and caused harm to plaintiff – first defendant contracted to perform maintenance on the roller door – no defects in welding reported prior to accident – defective welds would have been apparent to inspector exercising reasonable skill and care – first defendant breached duty of care to plaintiff CIVIL LAW – NEGLIGENCE – Personal injury claim arising from fault in roller doors – chain box for roller door fell off building and onto plaintiff’s head – weld affixing chain box to building failed and caused harm to plaintiff – third and fourth defendants held contract for the installation of chain boxes at the plaintiff’s workplace – whether fourth defendant performed the defective welding that attached the chain box to the building – documentary and witness evidence establishes fourth defendant installed the relevant chain box and welded it to the building – weld fell below standard reasonably expected of a person installing chain boxes – third defendant vicariously liable for the acts of its officer
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 42, 100, 168 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 443(3)
Cases Cited:	Cressy v Miloriad [2016] ACTSC 303 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352 New South Wales v Broune [2000] NSWCA 3 Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552
Parties:	Benjamin Tattersall ( Plaintiff) Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd ( First Defendant) Zavindi Pty Ltd t/as Goulburn Roller Doors ( Third Defendant) Nathan Flanagan ( Fourth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel A Muller SC with B Jullienne ( Plaintiff) M Nesbeth ( First Defendant) J Moffett ( Third and Fourth Defendants)
Solicitors Blumers Personal Injury Lawyers ( Plaintiff) Barry Nilsson Lawyers ( First Defendant) Mills Oakley ( Third and Fourth Defendants)
File Number:	SC 47 of 2023

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․This is a claim for personal injury arising out of an incident that occurred at the plaintiff’s work on 6 February 2019. The chain box for a manually operated roller door fell on the plaintiff’s head causing a deep laceration to the back of his head. He has claimed damages for negligence from a company that was responsible for preventative maintenance on the roller door, the first defendant. He has also claimed damages from the third and fourth defendants. The fourth defendant was the person who the plaintiff alleges performed the welding which secured the chain box to the building. The third defendant is the company of which the fourth defendant was a director.
2․In the event that liability is established,…

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 Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia 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: [2023] ACTSC 390
Decision Date: 14 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Tattersall, brought a personal injury claim against Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd and associated defendants, arising from an incident where a chain box for a roller door fell off a building and struck Tattersall on the head. The plaintiff alleged that the harm was caused by a weld that failed, which had been used to affix the chain box to the building. The first defendant, contracted to maintain the roller door, was alleged to have breached its duty of care by not identifying defects in the welding prior to the accident. The third and fourth defendants were held responsible for the installation of the chain boxes at the plaintiff’s workplace. The central legal issues involved determining whether the first defendant breached its duty of care and whether the fourth defendant was responsible for the defective welding.

The court examined the evidence presented, including documentary records and witness testimonies, to ascertain the cause of the accident. It was established that the weld that failed was below the standard reasonably expected of someone installing chain boxes. The court found that the first defendant had a duty to inspect and maintain the roller door, and that any defects, including the defective weld, would have been apparent to an inspector exercising reasonable skill and care. Therefore, the first defendant was held to have breached its duty of care. Furthermore, the court determined that the third defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of its officer, the fourth defendant, who had installed the defective weld.

As a result of the findings, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Tattersall, against the first defendant, who was held liable for the breach of duty of care. The court determined that the fourth defendant, who installed the defective weld, was also liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The third defendant, as the employer, was held vicariously liable for the actions of its officer, the fourth defendant. The court made orders to compensate Tattersall for the injuries sustained, as detailed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [136].

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.