Zauner Constructions Pty Ltd v Harvey

Case [2004] NSWCA 8


CITATION: ZAUNER CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD v HARVEY & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 8
HEARING DATE(S): 24 October 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
14 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; McColl JA at 63; Grove J at 88
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: Appeal - Personal injury - Workplace injury - Negligence - Terms of building contract - Apportionment of responsibility between employer and contractor when negligent construction caused wall to fall - Damages - Future economic loss - Quantum
LEGISLATION CITED: Construction Safety Act 1912
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965
Workers Compensation Act 1987
CASES CITED: Bradford v Symondsosn (1881) 7 QBD 456
CSR Limited v Elliott (CA, unreported, 23 June 1994, BC9404968)
Jennings Construction Limited v QH & M Birt Pty Ltd (1986) 8 NSWLR 18
Maggbury Pty Limited v Hafele Australia Pty Limited [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181
Maggiotto Building Concepts Pty Ltd v Gordon [2001] NSWCA 65
McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Limited [2000] HCA 65; (2000) 203 CLR 579
North v Marina [2003] NSWSC 64
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Tersons Limited v Stevenage Development Corporation [1963] 2 Lloyd's Rep 333
Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65

PARTIES :

Zauner Constructions Pty Ltd - Appellant
James Robert Harvey - First Respondent
Commercial Club (Albury) Limited - Second Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41189/02
COUNSEL: J D Hislop QC/M J Ward - Appellant
B Dooley - First Respondent
H N Kelly SC/M Holz - Second Respondent
SOLICITORS: Keddies - Appellant
R H Lewis & Associates - First Respondent
A O Ellison - Second Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70/01 (Albury)
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Walmsley DCJ


                          CA 41189/02
                          DC 70/01

                          SHELLER JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          GROVE J

ZAUNER CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD v HARVEY & ANOR

The first respondent was employed by and worked at the second respondent’s business as a kitchen hand. On the morning of 2 October 1998, the first respondent was standing in the kitchen area with other staff, having been requested to attend a demonstration of a new dishwasher. The appellant which was a construction company had arranged this demonstration. At this time, the appellant was in the process of erecting a temporary wall nearby the kitchen. Just before the dishwasher demonstration commenced, the temporary wall fell over, struck the first respondent and knocked him over.

As a result of this incident, the first respondent sustained injures to his right shoulder, head, back of shoulders and trunk. The first respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant and second respondent for breaches of statutory duty and negligence, to recover damages for these injuries.

Both the appellant and second respondent cross-claimed against the other. In the cross-claims the appellant relied upon the terms of a building contract, in particular clause P8.8, which stated that if the owner (the second respondent) of the premises enters into occupation of the Works or any portion thereof, then in respect to any…

Continue reading Zauner Constructions Pty Ltd v Harvey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zauner Constructions Pty Ltd v Harvey [2004] NSWCA 8
Case
[2004] NSWCA 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zauner Constructions Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Mr Harvey (the respondent) were parties to a building contract. The respondent sustained personal injuries when a wall collapsed during construction, an event caused by the appellant's negligent construction. The respondent brought proceedings against the appellant for damages for negligence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was liable in negligence for the respondent's injuries, and if so, how responsibility should be apportioned between the employer and the contractor, given the terms of the building contract. The court also considered the quantum of damages, specifically future economic loss.

The court found that the appellant's negligent construction was the direct cause of the wall's collapse and the respondent's injuries. Applying principles of negligence, the court determined that the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent, which it breached. The court considered the contractual terms but ultimately held the appellant solely responsible for the negligent act that caused the injury, finding no basis for apportionment of responsibility to the employer in this instance. The court also assessed the damages, including future economic loss, based on the evidence presented.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.