The Canberra Labor Club v Thomson, G.S

The appeal before the Federal Court of Australia was brought by the Canberra Labor Club (appellant) against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which found the appellant negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe system of work, resulting in the respondent, Garin Stuart Thomson, suffering back injuries on two separate occasions. The first incident occurred on 20 July 1983, and the second on 16 May 1984. The appellant no longer contests the decision in respect of the first incident but appeals the finding of negligence in relation to the second incident. The appellant seeks either for the Court to assess damages itself or for the case to be returned to the Supreme Court for assessment. No challenge is made to the amount of damages awarded by Kelly J. in respect of the two incidents.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the evidence established a failure to provide a safe system of work and whether the judgment contained findings that the appellant had failed to train the respondent appropriately or had allowed the respondent to carry out the work with knowledge of his back problems. The Court found that the evidence provided by two expert witnesses, Mr Osman, a consulting engineer, and Mrs Tapsell, an occupational therapist, was sufficient to establish that the system of work involved in the lifting and pouring of coins into the bagging machine was unsafe. Furthermore, the Court found that it was implicit in the judgment that the appellant had prior knowledge of the respondent's back problems.

The Court held that the appeal must fail and was dismissed with costs. The evidence provided by Mr Osman and Mrs Tapsell clearly established that simple procedures could have been adopted to reduce the risk of back injury, such as reducing the weight of the coins in the buckets, supplying an additional person to assist with the lift, lowering the height of the coin counting machine, and alloting more time to the task. The Court found that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was open on the evidence presented, and no question of principle was involved in the case.