TRANSFIELD SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD -v- WIELAND [2014] WASCA 41

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 41
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:138/2012	Heard:	12 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	MARTIN CJ PULLIN JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	21/02/14
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TRANSFIELD SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ANTON WIELAND
Catchwords:	Appeal Negligence Workplace injury Duty of care Whether trial judge misdirected herself as to duty of an employer with respect to an employee Whether trial judge erred by failing to consider what reasonable response was required by the appellant in relation to a foreseeable risk Whether trial judge erred in finding that the employer was negligent in not regularly inspecting steps in the workplace physically as well as visually Cross-appeal Negligence Damages Quantum of damages Future economic loss Discount for contingencies Whether discount of 50% for vicissitudes of life manifestly excessive Whether trial judge erred in applying a discount for identifiable future services and future medical and other expenses
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lawson v Flavel [2001] WASCA 272 MR & RC Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultra Tune (Osborne Park) v Wyatt [No 2] [2012] WASCA 110 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330 Villasevil v Pickering [2001] WASCA 143; (2001) 24 WAR 167 Wieland v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Defence) [2012] WADC 156

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : TRANSFIELD SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD -v- WIELAND [2014] WASCA 41 CORAM : MARTIN CJ

PULLIN JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 12 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 21 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 138 of 2012 BETWEEN : TRANSFIELD SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

ANTON WIELAND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : BRADDOCK DCJ

Citation : WIELAND -v- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE) [2012] WADC 156

File No : CIV 3506 of 2010

Catchwords:

Appeal - Negligence - Workplace injury - Duty of care - Whether trial judge misdirected herself as to duty of an employer with respect to an employee - Whether trial judge erred by failing to consider what reasonable response was required by the appellant in relation to a foreseeable risk - Whether trial judge erred in finding that the employer was negligent in not regularly inspecting steps in the workplace physically as well as visually

Cross-appeal - Negligence - Damages - Quantum of damages - Future economic loss - Discount for contingencies - Whether discount of 50% for vicissitudes of life manifestly excessive - Whether trial judge erred in applying a discount for identifiable future services and future medical and other expenses

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D R Clyne

Respondent : Mr T Lampropoulos SC

Solicitors:

Appellant : WHL Legal Pty Ltd

Respondent : Vertannes Georgiou

Case(s) referred to…

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 Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wieland 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: [2014] WASCA 41
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd was the appellant and Wieland was the respondent in this matter before the High Court of Australia. The dispute arose from a workplace accident where the respondent suffered injury due to the alleged negligence of the appellant. The trial judge found the appellant negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures and awarded damages to the respondent. The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge misdirected herself on the duty of care and erred in calculating the quantum of damages.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly identified the appellant's duty of care towards the respondent and whether she erred in considering the reasonable response required by the appellant regarding a foreseeable risk. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant was negligent in not inspecting the workplace steps regularly and in what capacity. On the cross-appeal, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in applying a discount for future economic loss and whether a 50% discount for the vicissitudes of life was manifestly excessive.

The High Court held that the trial judge misdirected herself in relation to the appellant's duty of care and the reasonable response required in addressing a foreseeable risk. The court found that the trial judge did not consider the appellant's actions in light of what was reasonably required. Furthermore, the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant was negligent in not inspecting the steps regularly and in finding that the discount applied to the future economic loss was manifestly excessive. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the trial judge were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.