Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Metcash Trading Ltd [2019] NSWCA 94 Hearing dates: 21 June 2018 Decision date: 03 May 2019 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
White JA at [2];
Simpson AJA at [149]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Cross-appeal dismissed.
(3) Set aside orders 1 and 2 made in the District Court on 23 June 2017.
(4) In lieu thereof direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be calculated in accordance with the reasons of the primary judge and with these reasons, such judgment to take effect from 23 June 2017.
(5) Direct that within 21 days the parties provide to White JA’s Associate either an agreed calculation of the amount for which judgment should be entered, or, in the absence of agreement, each party’s calculation of the amount for which judgment should be entered and a short submission of no more than five pages identifying areas of disagreement and setting out each party’s contentions in relation to matters on which agreement has not been reached.
(6) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings below and of the appeal and cross-appeal.Catchwords: TORTS – Negligence – Appellant employed as picker packer at product distribution centre – Whether primary judge erred in finding that host employer breached duty of care to appellant by requiring him to pick heavy cartons stored at low height – Whether breach of duty causative of appellant’s harm – Whether error in finding of contributory negligence in circumstances where worker required to adopt system of work – Whether primary judge erred in accepting evidence that appellant’s pain syndrome was caused by physical injury – Appeal allowed Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5R, 31, 32, 33
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.17
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 151G, 151ZCases Cited: Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307
Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd v Watts [2005] NSWCA 191
Brown v Hewson [2015] NSWCA 393
Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563; [1979] HCA 37
Council of the City of Greater Taree v Wells [2010] NSWCA 147
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438; [1981] HCA 41
Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540; [2002] HCA 54
Hollier v Sutcliffe [2010] NSWSC 279
J Blackwood & Son v Skilled Engineering [2008] NSWCA 142
Jurox Pty Ltd v Fullick [2016] NSWCA 180
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306; [1984] HCA 60
Mousa v Marsh [2001] NSWCA 317
Optus Administration Pty Limited v Wright [2017] NSWCA 21
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 99
South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Ltd v Gazis [2016] NSWCA 8
Sydney South West Area Health Service v…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams v Metcash Trading Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWCA 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellate court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the host employer breached its duty of care to the appellant by requiring him to pick heavy cartons stored at a low height. Further, the court had to consider whether any such breach was causative of the appellant’s harm, and whether the primary judge erred in finding contributory negligence in circumstances where the worker was required to adopt a particular system of work. Finally, the court was asked to determine whether the primary judge erred in accepting the evidence that the appellant's pain syndrome was caused by a physical injury.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in certain respects. The court set aside the orders of the District Court and directed the entry of judgment for the plaintiff, with the amount to be calculated in accordance with the reasons of the primary judge and the appellate court. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below and of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Cross-appeal dismissed.
(3) Set aside orders 1 and 2 made in the District Court on 23 June 2017.
(4) In lieu thereof direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be calculated in accordance with the reasons of the primary judge and with these reasons, such judgment to take effect from 23 June 2017.
(5) Direct that within 21 days the parties provide to White JA’s Associate either an agreed calculation of the amount for which judgment should be entered, or, in the absence of agreement, each party’s calculation of the amount for which judgment should be entered and a short submission of no more than five pages identifying areas of disagreement and setting out each party’s contentions in relation to matters on which agreement has not been reached.
(6) Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings below and of the appeal and cross-appeal.
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.