VWA v Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd - [2014] VSC 505

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 02090

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Plaintiff
v
BAYER CROPSCIENCE PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 7 & 8 OCTOBER 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 OCTOBER 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	VWA v Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 505

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – female sales representative slipping on bare metal edge of stairs in leased office premises, sustaining serious injury – premises occupied by number of companies under parent umbrella – whether and to what extent defendant occupier caused or contributed to injury – extent of defendant’s control and responsibility for management of workplace safety risks at premises – identifying factor X as between landlord, occupying companies and employer – Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), s 138(3)(b), Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), ss 14B, 44, 48, 49, 51.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	Ms J Frederico	Russell Kennedy Lawyers
For the defendant	Mr A Middleton	Ligeti Partners

HIS HONOUR:

Shelley Pyper was injured during the course of her employment with Bayer Australia Ltd (‘BAL’) on 13 May 2009 when she lost her footing on the bare metal edge of stairs in the foyer of the leased Bayer office premises at 391-393 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East. A negligence action between Ms Pyper and BAL has been settled.

In this proceeding, Victorian Workcover Authority claims recovery of compensation payments against Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd (‘BCS’) as a third party under s 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic). The only issue in dispute is factor X in s 138(3)(b) of the Act, being the extent, expressed as a percentage and if any, whereby BCS’s act, default or negligence caused or contributed to Ms Pyper’s injury.

In order to determine that issue, it is necessary to consider three questions:

(1)As an occupier, did BCS have or not have responsibility for the condition of the stairs on which Ms Pyper fell?
(2)Did any act, default or negligence of BCS in relation to its maintenance and management of the stairs cause or contribute to Ms Pyper’s injury?
(3)What should be the extent of BCS’s proportionate liability as an occupier as against two other occupiers (being the landlord and Bayer Materials Pty Ltd (‘BM’)) and BAL as the employer?

BCS’s responsibility as an occupier

In BCS’s submission, the evidence establishes that BAL assumed complete control for all safety issues at the premises. BCS in effect delegated its duty as an occupier to BAL. BCS neither accepted, nor had the capacity to fulfil, any responsibility for safety at the premises. Any responsibility in negligence or breach of duty for the injury suffered by Ms Pyper was entirely that of BAL. None lay in the hands of BCS.

I reject this submission. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that, at all material times, BCS maintained ultimate control and responsibility for the management and safety of the premises in relation…

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 VWA v Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: VWA v Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 505
Case: [2014] VSC 505
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a female sales representative who suffered serious injuries after slipping on a bare metal edge of the stairs in the leased office premises of Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd. The plaintiff, VWA, sought compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) and the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The central issue was whether Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd, as the occupier, caused or contributed to the injury, and to what extent they were responsible for managing workplace safety risks at the premises. The court needed to determine the extent of the defendant's control and responsibility, considering the complex relationship between the landlord, the occupying companies, and the employer.

The court considered the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act and the Wrongs Act to address these issues. It examined the nature of the premises, the relationship between Bayer Cropscience and the landlord, and the extent of Bayer Cropscience's control over the premises. The court also considered the roles and responsibilities of the various parties in managing workplace safety risks. The analysis included the identification of the key factor X in determining liability, which involved balancing the control and responsibility of each party in the context of the leased premises.

The court found that Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd had a significant degree of control over the premises, including the maintenance of the stairs where the accident occurred. It determined that Bayer Cropscience was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, as they had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the premises. The court held that Bayer Cropscience was responsible for the injuries, as they had control over the area where the accident happened and did not take adequate measures to prevent such incidents. The court awarded compensation to the plaintiff for her injuries.

In conclusion, the court ordered Bayer Cropscience Pty Ltd to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries sustained in the accident. The decision emphasised the importance of occupiers taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their premises, particularly in leased environments where multiple parties may share responsibility.

Orders