Legal Research
Cases
VWA v Monash University

VWA v Monash University

Case [2016] VSC 178 22 April 2016

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 02296

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Plaintiff
v
MONASH UNIVERSITY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27, 28 January 2016 and 7,8 March 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 April 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	VWA v Monash University
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 178

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION — Female worker fell when walking on man-made pathway through a garden bed, sustaining injury — Premises occupied by university — Claim for indemnity by VWA against university in respect of compensation payments made to the worker − Whether there was a breach of occupier’s common law duty and/or statutory duty creating a liability in the university − Whether it was reasonable for the university to take no precautions against the risk of harm posed by the garden path — No breach of duty by university – Application dismissed — Accident Compensation Act 1985, s 138; Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, s 26; Wrongs Act 1958, ss 14B, 48, 49.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Ruskin QC with Ms C Spitaleri	Wisewould Mahony Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr R Stanley QC with Ms K L Bradey	Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

On 1 September 2010, Ms Janis Lonie commenced employment as the manager of the Gryph Inn Bar and Bistro (‘Gryph Inn’) at the Caulfield campus of Monash University. On 6 October 2010, Ms Lonie sustained serious injuries when she slipped and fell on a man-made pathway through a garden bed whilst walking from the Gryph Inn to her car. In late 2015, proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria between Ms Lonie and Monash University (‘Monash’) were settled. Ms Lonie was paid $100,000.

The present proceedings involve a claim pursuant to s 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘ACA’) by the Victorian WorkCover Authority (‘VWA’) against Monash for an indemnity in respect of compensation payments which have been, and which will be, paid to Ms Lonie as a result of the injuries which she sustained.

There are two principal issues which fall for determination:

(a) Were the injuries sustained by Ms Lonie on 6 October 2010 caused in circumstances creating a liability in Monash University to pay her damages?[1]

(b) If so, what is the amount which Monash is required to indemnify the VWA in accordance with the formula prescribed by s 138(3) of the ACA?

[1]See s 138(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985.

I have concluded that the injuries sustained by Ms Lonie on 6 October 2010 were not sustained in circumstances which created any liability in Monash to pay damages. As such, Monash is not liable to indemnify the VWA in accordance with the formula prescribed by s 138(3) of the ACA.

The facts and evidence

From 1 September 2010, Ms Lonie was employed by Gryph Investments Pty Ltd as manager of the Gryph…

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 Monash University

Details

AGLC: VWA v Monash University [2016] VSC 178
Case: [2016] VSC 178
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Victorian Workcover Authority (VWA) sought indemnity from Monash University for compensation payments made to a female worker who sustained injuries after falling on a man-made pathway through a garden bed on the university's premises. The VWA claimed that the university, as the occupier, had breached its common law and statutory duties by not taking reasonable precautions to prevent the risk of harm from the garden path. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the university had breached its common law and/or statutory duties, and if it was reasonable for the university to take no precautions against the risk of harm posed by the garden path. The common law duty was considered under the principles established in the case of *Wyong Shire Council v Shirt*, and the statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. The court examined whether the risk was foreseeable, not insignificant, and whether reasonable precautions could have been taken to mitigate the risk.

The court found that the university had not breached its common law or statutory duties. It was held that the risk was not significant enough to impose a duty of care on the university, and that it was reasonable for the university to take no precautions against the risk of harm from the garden path. The court considered factors such as the frequency of use, the nature of the pathway, and the measures already in place to mitigate risks. The application for indemnity was dismissed, with the court concluding that the university was not liable for the compensation payments made to the worker.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the application for indemnity by the VWA against Monash University. The court held that the university had not breached its common law or statutory duties, and that it was reasonable for the university to take no precautions against the risk of harm from the garden path. The decision was based on the assessment of the foreseeability and significance of the risk, as well as the reasonableness of any potential precautionary measures.

Orders