Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 45

Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 45

On the evidence, s. 59(1) imposed a duty only to guard dangerous machinery parts, not to guard against material ejected from machines; there was no sufficient evidence to support a finding that the accident was due to a breach of statutory duty or negligence; the facts did not enable the operation of res ipsa loquitur as there was no evidence as to the unusualness or foreseeability of the occurrence; the judge exercised his discretion correctly in not amending the issues after the evidence closed, as there was no evidence to support a claim as notionally amended.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: William Mummery; Respondent; Defendant: Irvings Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Negligence/personal Injury) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Invitee Liability, Factories and Shops Act 1928 (vict.), Res Ipsa Loquitur, Particulars and Amendment of Pleadings, Breach of Statutory Duty
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Occupier's Liability Negligence Invitee Liability Factories and Shops Act 1928 (vict.) Res Ipsa Loquitur Particulars and Amendment of Pleadings +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Mummery

Appellant; Plaintiff

Irvings Proprietary Limited

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Negligence/personal Injury) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 59(1) of the Factories and Shops Act 1928 (Vict.) imposed an obligation on the occupier to guard against materials ejected from machinery, not just dangerous parts of machinery
  2. 2 Whether breach of that statutory obligation gives rise to a cause of action for damages to an invitee
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied on the facts to constitute evidence of negligence on the part of the respondent's servant

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, s. 59(1) imposed a duty only to guard dangerous machinery parts, not to guard against material ejected from machines; there was no sufficient evidence to support a finding that the accident was due to a breach of statutory duty or negligence; the facts did not enable the operation of res ipsa loquitur as there was no evidence as to the unusualness or foreseeability of the occurrence; the judge exercised his discretion correctly in not amending the issues after the evidence closed, as there was no evidence to support a claim as notionally amended.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Verdict for the defendant reinstated; no new trial ordered.
  • Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria affirmed.