Transtate Pty. Limited v Rauk - [2002] NSWCA 222

CITATION: TRANSTATE PTY. LIMITED v. RAUK & ANOR. [2002] NSWCA 222

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40880/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26/02/2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 August 2002

PARTIES :

Transtate Pty. Limited (Appellant)
Peter Rauk (First Respondent)
Restisle Pty. Limited (Second Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA at 1; Santow JA at 86; Mathews AJA at 87

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : CLD 21142/95/ CLD 20624/96

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : O'Keefe J

COUNSEL: D.G.T. Nock SC and Ms. S.B. Piedade (Appellant)
D.F. Rofe QC and R.I. Goodridge (First Respondent)
C.R.R. Hoeben SC (Second Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Hunt & Hunt (Appellant)
Firths (First Respondent)
Hickson Wisewoulds (Second Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: MASTER AND SERVANT - Negligence - services of workman hired out by employer - Workman injured by negligence of hirer. - NEGLIGENCE - Services of workman hired out by employer - Workman injured by negligence of hirer. - D

CASES CITED:
Boral Roof Tiles Limited v. O'Brien (1994) 15 NSWCCR 1
Fairfield City Council v. Coupe [2001] NSWCA 195
Fennell v. Supervision and Engineering Services Holdings Pty. Ltd. (1988) 47 SASR 6
Garrard v. A.E. Southey & Co and Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd [1952] 2 QB 174
Hollis v. Vabu Pty. Limited [2001] HCA 44; (2000-2001) 75 ALJR 1356; 181 ALR 263
Holt v. W.H. Rhodes & Son Ld. [1949] 1 AER 478
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ld [1947] AC 1
Monarch Insurance Co Limited v. Steel Mains Pty. Ltd. [1986] VR 831
OP Industries Pty. Ltd. v. MMI Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (1998) 17 NSWCCR 193
Quarman v. Burnett (1840) 6 M & W 499; 151 ER 509
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils of Group Apprentices v. Statrona Pty. Ltd. Court of Appeal 29 August 1995 (unreported)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs

CA 40880/00
CLD 21142/95
CLD 20624/96

POWELL JA
SANTOW JA
MATHEWS AJA
15 August 2002

TRANSTATE PTY. LIMITED v. RAUK & ANOR.

Judgment

1 POWELL JA: This is an appeal from a Judgment delivered, and orders made, by O’Keefe J on 3 November 2000 in one of two sets of proceedings which his Honour had heard together.

2 In the first of those proceedings, the First Respondent (“Mr. Rauk”) who claimed to be an employee of the Second Respondent (Restisle”) sought to recover from the Appellant (“Transtate”) damages for injuries which he had sustained when, as an employee of Restisle, he was carrying out for Transtate certain works in Transtate’s factory premises at Darcy Road, Port Kembla.

3 Notwithstanding that, in its Defence (RAB 40) and Amended Defence (Supplementary RAB 7), Transtate put in issue – by not admitting – that, at all relevant times, Mr. Rauk was employed by Restisle, that at all relevant times, Restisle was contracted by it to carry out work at its factory; and that, at the relevant time, Mr. Rauk, in the course of his employment with Restisle, was carrying out work at Transtate’s factory; Transtate then injected…

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 Transtate Pty. Limited v Rauk 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: [2002] NSWCA 222
Decision Date: 15 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Transtate Pty. Limited appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the liability of Transtate for injuries sustained by an employee of a labour-hire company, Rauk, who was working on Transtate's premises. The employee was injured due to the alleged negligence of Transtate.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Transtate owed a duty of care to the labour-hire employee, and if so, whether it breached that duty, thereby causing the employee's injuries. The court was required to consider the nature of the relationship between Transtate, the labour-hire company, and the employee, and how that relationship impacted the scope of any duty of care owed by Transtate.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, finding that Transtate did owe a duty of care to the employee. The court reasoned that Transtate, as the occupier of the premises and the entity directing the employee's work, had a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment. This duty extended to taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to individuals working on its site, including those supplied by a labour-hire agency. The court applied established principles of negligence concerning occupiers' liability and the duty owed to those who are not direct employees but are present on the premises under the control or direction of the occupier.

The appeal was dismissed, and Transtate Pty. Limited was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.

CITATION:	TRANSTATE PTY. LIMITED v. RAUK & ANOR. [2002] NSWCA 222
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40880/00
HEARING DATE(S):	26/02/2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 August 2002
PARTIES :	Transtate Pty. Limited (Appellant) Peter Rauk (First Respondent) Restisle Pty. Limited (Second Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Powell JA at 1; Santow JA at 86; Mathews AJA at 87

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	CLD 21142/95/ CLD 20624/96
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	O'Keefe J

COUNSEL:	D.G.T. Nock SC and Ms. S.B. Piedade (Appellant) D.F. Rofe QC and R.I. Goodridge (First Respondent) C.R.R. Hoeben SC (Second Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Hunt & Hunt (Appellant) Firths (First Respondent) Hickson Wisewoulds (Second Respondent)
CATCHWORDS:	MASTER AND SERVANT - Negligence - services of workman hired out by employer - Workman injured by negligence of hirer. - NEGLIGENCE - Services of workman hired out by employer - Workman injured by negligence of hirer. - D
CASES CITED:	Boral Roof Tiles Limited v. O'Brien (1994) 15 NSWCCR 1 Fairfield City Council v. Coupe [2001] NSWCA 195 Fennell v. Supervision and Engineering Services Holdings Pty. Ltd. (1988) 47 SASR 6 Garrard v. A.E. Southey & Co and Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd [1952] 2 QB 174 Hollis v. Vabu Pty. Limited [2001] HCA 44; (2000-2001) 75 ALJR 1356; 181 ALR 263 Holt v. W.H. Rhodes & Son Ld. [1949] 1 AER 478 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ld [1947] AC 1 Monarch Insurance Co Limited v. Steel Mains Pty. Ltd. [1986] VR 831 OP Industries Pty. Ltd. v. MMI Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (1998) 17 NSWCCR 193 Quarman v. Burnett (1840) 6 M & W 499; 151 ER 509 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils of Group Apprentices v. Statrona Pty. Ltd. Court of Appeal 29 August 1995 (unreported)
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs