Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd [1987] HCA 68

Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd [1987] HCA 68

The respondent breached its duty to provide proper and adequate means of access and a safe system for replacing the banner. The unsafe system was not solely the appellant's fault: it was substantially devised by other employees, particularly Mr Berg, and the respondent was responsible for that fault. The appellant was nevertheless careless of his own safety by acquiescing in and helping implement a manifestly unsafe system, so his damages were reduced by 40 per cent for contributory negligence and he recovered 60 per cent of the assessed damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim by Employee Against Employer / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; orders of the Full Court and relevant part of the Supreme Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for the appellant for $167,609.57 together with interest, with liberty to apply on seven days notice in relation to interest.
Legal Topics
["employer's Duty of Care" 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence' 'vicarious Liability' 'employee Who Is Also a Director']
['tort Law' 'employment Law'] ["employer's Duty of Care" 'safe System of Work' 'contributory Negligence' 'vicarious Liability' 'employee Who Is Also a Director']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Claim by Employee Against Employer / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent employer breached its duty to provide the appellant employee with proper and adequate means of carrying out work and a safe system of work.' 'Whether the appellant was barred from recovery because he participated in devising or adopting the unsafe system of work.' "Whether the appellant's damages should be reduced for contributory negligence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached its duty to provide proper and adequate means of access and a safe system for replacing the banner. The unsafe system was not solely the appellant's fault: it was substantially devised by other employees, particularly Mr Berg, and the respondent was responsible for that fault. The appellant was nevertheless careless of his own safety by acquiescing in and helping implement a manifestly unsafe system, so his damages were reduced by 40 per cent for contributory negligence and he recovered 60 per cent of the assessed damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; orders of the Full Court and relevant part of the Supreme Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for the appellant for $167,609.57 together with interest, with liberty to apply on seven days notice in relation to interest.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland dated 19 December 1986 set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, appeal to the Full Court allowed with costs.' 'Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland dated 3 April 1986 set aside in so far as it adjudged that the plaintiff recover...