O'Connor v S P Bray Limited [1937] HCA 18

O'Connor v S P Bray Limited [1937] HCA 18

As the jury found that the plaintiff was unaware, at the time of proceeding under the Workers' Compensation Act, of his alternative right to sue at common law, sec. 63 does not preclude his action. The absence of safety gear on the goods lift was a breach of statutory duty for which the plaintiff was a person intended to be protected, giving rise to civil liability. Negligence was also established on the facts. However, as a general verdict was returned without specifying the count, and liability on all counts was necessary, a new trial was ordered except as to the sec. 63 issue already determined.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Cornelius O'Connor; Respondent; Defendant: S. P. Bray Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court) to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Order of Full Court discharged. New trial ordered on all issues arising under the third and fourth counts except the sec. 63 issue, which is concluded by the jury's finding. Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal. Costs of first trial and of Full Court appeal to abide the event of the new trial.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Election of Remedies, Workers' Compensation Act 1926 1929 (nsw) S 63, Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 (nsw) Reg 31(b)
Torts Statutory Duty Workers' Compensation Employer's Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence Election of Remedies Workers' Compensation Act 1926 1929 (nsw) S 63 +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius O'Connor

Appellant; Plaintiff

S. P. Bray Limited

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court) to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receipt of compensation and proceedings under the Workers' Compensation Act precludes a subsequent common law action for damages (sec. 63)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached a statutory duty to provide safety gear for the lift under the Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 (NSW), reg 31(b)
  3. 3 Whether the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant's employees

Ratio Decidendi

As the jury found that the plaintiff was unaware, at the time of proceeding under the Workers' Compensation Act, of his alternative right to sue at common law, sec. 63 does not preclude his action. The absence of safety gear on the goods lift was a breach of statutory duty for which the plaintiff was a person intended to be protected, giving rise to civil liability. Negligence was also established on the facts. However, as a general verdict was returned without specifying the count, and liability on all counts was necessary, a new trial was ordered except as to the sec. 63 issue already determined.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Order of Full Court discharged. New trial ordered on all issues arising under the third and fourth counts except the sec. 63 issue, which is concluded by the jury's finding. Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal. Costs of first trial and of Full Court appeal to abide the event of the new trial.

Orders

  • Order of Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged.
  • New trial ordered on all issues raised under the third and fourth counts except the issue under the second plea (sec. 63).