Monad (Constructions) Pty Ltd v. Fernance, James Matthew [1979] FCA 74

Monad (Constructions) Pty Ltd v. Fernance, James Matthew [1979] FCA 74

The trial judge's finding that the accident occurred as described by the respondent was supported by evidence and turned on credibility, so the appellate court would not disturb it. On the facts found, the appellant breached its duty as employer by requiring the respondent, a nineteen-year-old employee, and Davis to unload a large, heavy and awkward assembled shed contrary to the established practice of dismantling large sheds, without appropriate equipment, manpower, supervision or adequate instructions. The respondent's momentary taking of the shed's weight did not amount to contributory negligence in the circumstances of urgency, inadequate instruction, and the natural tendency to try...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 1979
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Damages for Personal Injury by Employee Against Employer; Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["employer's Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work" 'adequacy of Instructions to Employees' 'contributory Negligence' "appellate Review of Trial Judge's Findings of Fact and Inference"]
['torts' 'negligence' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ["employer's Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work" 'adequacy of Instructions to Employees' 'contributory Negligence' "appellate Review of Trial Judge's Findings of Fact and Inference"]

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

Negligence Claim for Damages for Personal Injury by Employee Against Employer; Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the accident occurred in the manner described by the respondent.' 'Whether the appellant employer was negligent in requiring the respondent and Davis to unload a large site shed without assistance, equipment, supervision or adequate instructions.' 'Whether the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence.' 'How an appellate court should approach findings of primary fact and inferences drawn by a trial judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's finding that the accident occurred as described by the respondent was supported by evidence and turned on credibility, so the appellate court would not disturb it. On the facts found, the appellant breached its duty as employer by requiring the respondent, a nineteen-year-old employee, and Davis to unload a large, heavy and awkward assembled shed contrary to the established practice of dismantling large sheds, without appropriate equipment, manpower, supervision or adequate instructions. The respondent's momentary taking of the shed's weight did not amount to contributory negligence in the circumstances of urgency, inadequate instruction, and the natural tendency to try...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']