BALESFIRE PTY LIMITED trading as THE GUTTER SHOP v JAMIE ADAMS and Others; JAMIE ADAMS v BALESFIRE PTY LIMITED trading as THE GUTTER SHOP and Others [2006] NSWCA 112

BALESFIRE PTY LIMITED trading as THE GUTTER SHOP v JAMIE ADAMS and Others; JAMIE ADAMS v BALESFIRE PTY LIMITED trading as THE GUTTER SHOP and Others [2006] NSWCA 112

The Construction Safety Regulations imposed obligations on those actively involved in the construction work; both Gutter Shop and Mr and Mrs Ekonomou participated sufficiently in the guttering installation and ancillary safety arrangements to be jointly liable for statutory breaches causing the plaintiff’s injury. Apportionment of liability is 65% to Gutter Shop, 35% equally to Mr and Mrs Ekonomou.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (except as varied for orders to Mr and Mrs Ekonomou). Verdicts and judgments against Gutter Shop, Mr Ekonomou, and Mrs Ekonomou. Apportionment of liability ordered.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'negligence' 'independent Contractor Liability' "occupier's Duty" 'construction Safety Regulations Breach' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Liability' 'bullock Order' 'statutory Interpretation']
['tort Law' 'occupiers Liability' 'construction Law' 'statutory Duty'] ['duty of Care' 'negligence' 'independent Contractor Liability' "occupier's Duty" 'construction Safety Regulations Breach' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Liability' 'bullock Order' 'statutory Interpretation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Gutter Shop owe the plaintiff a duty of care, was it breached and did the breach cause the injury?' 'Were Construction Safety Regulations 73 and/or 74 breached and did breaches cause the injury?' 'Did builder(s) owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and breach it?' "Were Mr and/or Mrs Ekonomou occupiers and was the occupier's duty breached?" 'Were Mr or Mrs Ekonomou or Jemm liable for breach of Construction Safety Regulations?' 'Was Raftarail liable to the plaintiff?' "Should plaintiff's damages be reduced for contributory negligence?" 'Were damages correctly assessed?' 'Did Gutter Shop have a contractual right of indemnity?' 'How should liability and contribution be apportioned between tortfeasors?' 'Was the Bullock costs order appropriate?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Construction Safety Regulations imposed obligations on those actively involved in the construction work; both Gutter Shop and Mr and Mrs Ekonomou participated sufficiently in the guttering installation and ancillary safety arrangements to be jointly liable for statutory breaches causing the plaintiff’s injury. Apportionment of liability is 65% to Gutter Shop, 35% equally to Mr and Mrs Ekonomou.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (except as varied for orders to Mr and Mrs Ekonomou). Verdicts and judgments against Gutter Shop, Mr Ekonomou, and Mrs Ekonomou. Apportionment of liability ordered.

Orders

  • ["Gutter Shop's appeal against the plaintiff dismissed with costs." "Gutter Shop's appeal against Jemm and Raftarail dismissed with costs." "Gutter Shop's appeal against Mr and Mrs Ekonomou upheld with costs; respondents to have certificate under Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified." "No order as to costs on the...