Wyn Products Pty Ltd v Grono

[2001] NSWCA 326

CITATION:	WYN PRODUCTS PTY LTD v GRONO [2001] NSWCA 326
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40636/00
HEARING DATE(S):	6 September 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	6 September 2001
PARTIES :	Wyn Products Pty Ltd (Appellant) John Grono (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Beazley JA at 1; Fitzgerald JA at 2; Davies AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	9220/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL:	G Parker (Appellant) A Lidden (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	P W Turk & Associates (Appellant) Brydens Law Office (Respondent)
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act 1970
CASES CITED:	Nil
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

40636/00
9220/98

BEAZLEY JA

DAVIES AJA

FITZGERALD AJA

Wednesday 6 September 2001


WYN PRODUCTS PTY LTD v John GRONO

Short Reasons for Decision

Fitzgerald AJA will give the judgment of the Court.

2 FITZGERALD AJA: The appeal is dismissed with costs and the Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle pursuant to s45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

3 The Court’s reasons in short form are as follows: the respondent worked for the appellant. During part of a period in which the appellant worked on preventative maintenance of the appellant’s equipment, the appellant divided some of the workmen who would normally have assisted the respondent to other activities. As a result, there were too few skilled workers available to perform the maintenance which the employer required them to complete by a deadline.

4 The appellant’s requirements obliged the respondent to perform excessive manual activities which led to a recurrence of a prior carpal tunnel injury which he had also suffered about a decade earlier while working for the appellant. There is a strong evidentiary basis for the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant had prior knowledge of the earlier injury. Whether or not it had that knowledge, all necessary ingredients of the respondent’s negligence claim on the employer were clearly established. This is a very plain example of an employer’s negligence causing injury to a worker.

5 The only complaint made by the employer in respect of the damages awarded to the worker relates to the amount awarded for future economic loss. The trial judge took into account the worker’s continuing employment by the employer but in a different role, considered an amount for further economic loss appropriate and awarded a lump sum of $75,000.

6 The worker was born in 1944 and was aged fifty-six at trial. His further economic loss relates to his overtime during the period he continues to be employed by the employer and the fact that if he loses his employment by the employer he will be unlikely to obtain another paid job. His earnings at the time of trial were about $840 per week.

7 The Court is satisfied that the amount awarded was within the discretion of the trial judge, both in the approach he adopted and the amount he ordered.

********