The Uniting Church v Takacs

The case of *The Uniting Church v Takacs* involved an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, Mr Takacs, who fell from the roof of premises owned by The Uniting Church (the Trust). Mr Takacs, a painting contractor, had been invited to the premises by the Trust's building maintenance manager to quote for painting work. While attempting to measure the roof, he fell approximately nine metres, suffering significant injuries. The plaintiff's claim was based on alleged breaches of statutory duty under the *Construction Safety Act 1912* (NSW) and the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950* (NSW), as well as negligence.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the work being undertaken by the plaintiff constituted "construction work" as defined by the Act, whether the Trust was the "constructor" in relation to that work, and consequently, whether the Trust owed a statutory duty of care under Regulation 73 or 74. Additionally, the court considered whether the Trust was negligent in its duty of care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the Trust, through its employee Mr Bagnara, had failed to provide safe working conditions, including adequate scaffolding or safety measures to prevent falls from height.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the primary judge. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's activity of measuring the roof for a painting quote did not amount to "construction work" as defined by the *Construction Safety Act 1912*. Therefore, the specific duties imposed by Regulations 73 and 74 of the *Construction Safety Regulations 1950* were not engaged. Furthermore, the court found that the Trust was not the "constructor" of any construction work. While Mr Bagnara was involved in organising maintenance, his actions in relation to the plaintiff's task did not render the Trust the constructor of construction work. The court also found that the Trust was not negligent, as the circumstances did not establish a breach of any duty of care owed to the plaintiff.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal entered judgment for the Trust and ordered that the plaintiff pay the Trust's costs of the proceedings and the appeal.