Wooby v Australian Postal Corporation - [2013] NSWCA 183

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wooby v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] NSWCA 183
Hearing dates: 24 April 2013
Decision date: 19 June 2013
Before: McColl JA at [1];
Basten JA at [2];
Ward JA at [60]
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court delivered on 14 March 2012.
(2) Enter judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court for damages to be assessed and remit the matter to the District Court for determination of:
(a) the degree, if any, of contributory negligence;
(b) determination of the injuries suffered by the appellant and quantification of damages, and
(c) costs of the trial.
(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - scope of duty - whether respondent owed appellant duty to ensure safe work conditions - where appellant worked as independent contractor - relevance of cases concerning principal's liability for negligence of one independent contractor harming another

NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - scope of duty - whether respondent owed duty to independent contractor to ensure safe work conditions - where respondent occupied premises - appellant injured whilst unloading parcels on respondent's premises - appellant contracted to work solely for contractor to respondent -appellant not exercising specialist skills - appellant injured during course of work which was part of system devised and controlled by respondent - where respondent knew of the risks which materialised - whether duty affected by terms of contract
NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty - adequacy of precautions against risk which materialised - appellant injured whilst lifting parcels pursuant to contract with respondent - respondent placed stickers on parcels indicating that they were heavy - respondent required principal contractor to accept responsibility for safe handling of parcels - additional precautions within primary control of respondent - additional precautions not unreasonably burdensome
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5A, 5B, 5H, 5I, 5L, 5M, 5O
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 35
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard [2009] NSWCA 167
Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 356
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; 240 CLR 1
Rockdale Beef Pty Ltd v Carey [2003] NSWCA 132
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1; 160 CLR 16
Sydney Water Corporation v Abramovic [2007] NSWCA 248
The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617
Thompson v Woolworths (Q'land) Pty Ltd

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 Wooby v Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2013] NSWCA 183
Decision Date: 19 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the Australian Postal Corporation's liability for injuries sustained by Mr. Wooby, an independent contractor, while unloading parcels on the Corporation's premises. Mr. Wooby had contracted to work solely for a principal contractor engaged by the Australian Postal Corporation. The dispute centred on whether the Australian Postal Corporation owed Mr. Wooby a duty of care to ensure safe work conditions, particularly given that Mr. Wooby was an independent contractor.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant, an independent contractor, to ensure safe work conditions, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court was required to consider the scope of the respondent's duty, particularly in circumstances where the appellant was an independent contractor, the work performed was part of a system devised and controlled by the respondent, and the respondent was aware of the risks that materialised. The relevance of the contractual terms, specifically the respondent requiring the principal contractor to accept responsibility for safe handling of parcels, was also a key consideration.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent did owe a duty of care to the appellant. This duty arose because the respondent occupied the premises, the appellant was injured whilst performing work that was integral to the respondent's system of operations, and the respondent knew of the risks associated with the task. The court reasoned that the contractual arrangements, which sought to shift responsibility to the principal contractor, did not absolve the respondent of its duty of care, especially when additional precautions were not unreasonably burdensome and were within the respondent's primary control. The court concluded that the respondent had breached this duty by failing to take adequate precautions against the risk that materialised.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the District Court. Judgment was entered for the appellant, Mr. Wooby, for damages to be assessed. The matter was remitted to the District Court for determination of contributory negligence, the quantification of damages, and the costs of the trial. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court delivered on 14 March 2012.

(2) Enter judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court for damages to be assessed and remit the matter to the District Court for determination of:

(a) the degree, if any, of contributory negligence;

(b) determination of the injuries suffered by the appellant and quantification of damages, and

(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wooby v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] NSWCA 183
Hearing dates:	24 April 2013
Decision date:	19 June 2013
Before:	McColl JA at [1]; Basten JA at [2]; Ward JA at [60]
Decision:	(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court delivered on 14 March 2012. (2) Enter judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court for damages to be assessed and remit the matter to the District Court for determination of: (a) the degree, if any, of contributory negligence; (b) determination of the injuries suffered by the appellant and quantification of damages, and (c) costs of the trial. (3) Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - scope of duty - whether respondent owed appellant duty to ensure safe work conditions - where appellant worked as independent contractor - relevance of cases concerning principal's liability for negligence of one independent contractor harming another NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - scope of duty - whether respondent owed duty to independent contractor to ensure safe work conditions - where respondent occupied premises - appellant injured whilst unloading parcels on respondent's premises - appellant contracted to work solely for contractor to respondent -appellant not exercising specialist skills - appellant injured during course of work which was part of system devised and controlled by respondent - where respondent knew of the risks which materialised - whether duty affected by terms of contract NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty - adequacy of precautions against risk which materialised - appellant injured whilst lifting parcels pursuant to contract with respondent - respondent placed stickers on parcels indicating that they were heavy - respondent required principal contractor to accept responsibility for safe handling of parcels - additional precautions within primary control of respondent - additional precautions not unreasonably burdensome
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5A, 5B, 5H, 5I, 5L, 5M, 5O Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 35
Cases Cited:	Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420 Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard [2009] NSWCA 167 Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 356 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; 240 CLR 1 Rockdale Beef Pty Ltd v Carey [2003] NSWCA 132 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1; 160 CLR 16 Sydney Water Corporation v Abramovic [2007] NSWCA 248 The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Thompson v Woolworths (Q'land) Pty Ltd