Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd - [2014] QSC 57

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 57

PARTIES:

Darren Michael Verney

(Plaintiff)

v

The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd

(Defendant)

FILE NO:

S35/13

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

3, 4, 5, 6 March 2014

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $585,767.78.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of an incidental to the action from 26 June 2013. Such costs to be assessed on the District Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:

Negligence – Master and Servant – Scope of Duty - Duty of Care – Safe System of work – Employer’s duty to provide safe system - Failure to take reasonable care for employee's safety - Burden of Proof – Quantum - Assessment of Damages

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301

Hamilton v Nuroof (W.A.) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18

Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

McLean v Tedman & Brambles Holdings Ltd (1984) 155 CLR 306

Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] 200 CLR 211

COUNSEL:

C Heyworth Smith for the plaintiff (3 March 2014)

G Crow, QC for the plaintiff (5 and 6 March 2014)

G O’Driscoll for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the plaintiff

BT Lawyers for the defendant

NORTH J: The plaintiff alleges he suffered personal injury in a workplace accident that occurred on 3 May 2011, whilst in the employ of the defendant. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was 29 years of age, his date of birth was 19 September 1981. Some two years and 10 months have elapsed since the incident.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a boilermaker and labourer at the defendant’s camp at Coppabella. The defendant carried on the business of providing construction and other services to mines and other industries in Central Queensland. At the time in question, the defendant was constructing accommodation facilities at the “Mac Coppabella Village” which accommodation facilities were to be used by the defendant’s own employees.

The plaintiff alleges that on the day in question he was using a wheelbarrow to move blue metal crusher dust from a stockpile to pathways and areas adjacent to a pathway under construction, where the dust was to be deposited, spread out and used as a base. In evidence, with the assistance of a sketch plan (exhibit 4), the plaintiff described the route he took from the stockpile of the crusher dust to the boxed section of the concrete path and adjacent area where the crusher dust was to be placed. In general, the route was following a clockwise direction from the stockpile, following a pathway between demountables and the concrete path under construction, where, after travelling some distance, he pushed the wheelbarrow across a plank that had been laid across a newly poured concrete path onto another walkway whereupon…

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.

Continue reading Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 57
Case: [2014] QSC 57
Decision Date: 6 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, who was an employee of the defendant, claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work and breached its duty of care towards him. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe working environment and whether such breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the quantum of damages owed to the plaintiff.

The court examined the principles of employer liability for workplace injuries, focusing on the employer's obligation to maintain a safe system of work. It assessed whether the employer had taken reasonable care to ensure the safety of its employees, and if there was a failure to do so, whether this failure directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. The burden of proof lay with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the injuries were a result of the employer's negligence. The court also had to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded, taking into account the extent of the injuries and their impact on the plaintiff’s life.

The court found that the defendant did indeed breach its duty by failing to provide a safe system of work. It held that the employer had not taken reasonable care to prevent the accident, which directly led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court awarded the plaintiff compensation for the injuries sustained, assessing the damages to be $585,767.78. This sum took into account the medical expenses, loss of income, and the impact on the plaintiff’s quality of life. The court also ruled that the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s costs incidental to the action from a specified date, to be assessed on the District Court scale.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $585,767.78. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs incidental to the action from 26 June 2013, with these costs to be assessed according to the District Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $585,767.78.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of an incidental to the action from 26 June 2013. Such costs to be assessed on the District Court scale.

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:	Verney v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 57
PARTIES:	Darren Michael Verney (Plaintiff) v The Mac Services Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
FILE NO:	S35/13
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Mackay
HEARING DATE:	3, 4, 5, 6 March 2014
JUDGE:	North J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $585,767.78. 2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of an incidental to the action from 26 June 2013. Such costs to be assessed on the District Court scale.
CATCHWORDS:	Negligence – Master and Servant – Scope of Duty - Duty of Care – Safe System of work – Employer’s duty to provide safe system - Failure to take reasonable care for employee's safety - Burden of Proof – Quantum - Assessment of Damages
LEGISLATION: