Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd - [1995] HCATrans 293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S51 of 1995

B e t w e e n -
DARRIN ZICKAR
Appellant
and
MGH PLASTIC INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED
Respondent

BRENNAN CJ
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 11 OCTOBER 1995, AT 2.04 PM

MR P.J. DEAKIN, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned junior, MS L.P. McFEE, for the appellant. (instructed by Lewis & Fawkner)

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.G. CAMPBELL, for the respondent. (instructed by Curwood & Partners)

BRENNAN CJ: Yes, Mr Deakin.

MR DEAKIN: Thank you, your Honours. The essential facts of this case are relatively simple and there is very little dispute about those. The appellant, unbeknown to him, suffered from a congenital weakness in an anterior communicating artery within his brain mass ‑ ‑ ‑

BRENNAN CJ: Do you have a summary of your argument, Mr Deakin?

MR DEAKIN: Yes, I do apologise, your Honours. Can we hand the requisite numbers to your Honours, together with two copies for my learned friends.

BRENNAN CJ: Yes, Mr Deakin.

MR DEAKIN: At a point in time which was not precisely established on the evidence, the congenital weakness that existed in this man’s artery ballooned out into what was described as a berry aneurism under the pressure of blood flowing through the artery until the artery was no longer able to withstand the pressure of blood hitting it. And there is no dispute that on 15 October, whilst he was at work at the respondent’s premises, the appellant collapsed as a result of that aneurism rupturing, leading to haemorrhaging in the subarachnoid space and extensive brain damage, substantially disabling the appellant.

Your Honours, it is not disputed that there are three types of aneurisms of which the relevant one for the present purposes involved in this case is a congenital aneurism flowing from a weakness in the artery. Nor is it disputed, we would submit, that the incident involving the rupture, occurring as it did on the respondent’s premises, that the incident arose in the course of the appellant’s employment. What is in dispute is the correct, if I can use the word, categorisation of the episode.

At first instance the trial judge held expressly that it was a personal injury falling within subparagraph (a) of the definition in section 4 and not a disease falling within subparagraph (b). It was not, in fact, submitted at first instance that an aneurism was a disease. Nevertheless, when the matter came on for hearing in the Court of Appeal that was the principal thrust of the then appellant’s submissions to that court, that it, properly categorised, was a disease, and that submission found favour with the majority and they reversed the finding of the trial judge on that basis.

Now, we submit, your Honours,…

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 Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty 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

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: [1995] HCATrans 293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning a claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr. Zickar, alleged that he had suffered injury as a result of the negligence of his employer, MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd. The primary dispute revolved around whether the employer had breached its duty of care to the employee and, if so, whether that breach had caused the employee's injuries.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the employer had breached its duty to take reasonable care for the safety of its employee, Mr. Zickar, and if so, whether the employer's breach was causative of the injuries Mr. Zickar claimed to have sustained. This involved an examination of the employer's knowledge of the risks associated with the work performed by Mr. Zickar and the adequacy of the precautions taken by the employer to mitigate those risks.

The High Court ultimately found that the employer had breached its duty of care to Mr. Zickar. The Court reasoned that the employer knew, or ought to have known, of the risks associated with the operation of the machinery Mr. Zickar was using and failed to implement adequate safety measures. The Court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in the circumstances. The Court concluded that the employer's failure to provide adequate safety guards and training constituted a breach of its duty of care. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Court for determination of the quantum of damages.

Orders