HIA Apprentices Limited v Bartley & 2 Ors; Apap Constructions Pty Ltd & 1 Or v HIA Apprentices Limited & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 87

HIA Apprentices Limited v Bartley & 2 Ors; Apap Constructions Pty Ltd & 1 Or v HIA Apprentices Limited & 1 Or [2004] NSWCA 87

The Court held that there was no evidentiary foundation for the trial judge's finding that the defendants' instructions or failure to provide a certain system of work caused the plaintiff to descend the building dangerously. The safe and available alternative (the extension ladder) was present, and the plaintiff knowingly chose a riskier method. Thus, negligence was not established against HIA, Apap Constructions or Mr Apap.

Parties
Appellant/first Respondent: HIA Apprentices Limited; Respondent/second Respondent: Nathan Bartley; Appellant/second Respondent/first Appellant: Apap Constructions Pty Ltd; Third Respondent/second Appellant: Peter George Apap
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Employer's Duty of Care, Safe System of Work, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Negligence Personal Injury Employer's Duty of Care Safe System of Work Contributory Negligence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HIA Apprentices Limited

Appellant/first Respondent

Nathan Bartley

Respondent/second Respondent

Apap Constructions Pty Ltd

Appellant/second Respondent/first Appellant

Peter George Apap

Third Respondent/second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HIA, Apap Constructions and Mr Apap were negligent in relation to the plaintiff's injury
  2. 2 Whether HIA owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there was no evidentiary foundation for the trial judge's finding that the defendants' instructions or failure to provide a certain system of work caused the plaintiff to descend the building dangerously. The safe and available alternative (the extension ladder) was present, and the plaintiff knowingly chose a riskier method. Thus, negligence was not established against HIA, Apap Constructions or Mr Apap.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Judgment, verdict and orders of Delaney DCJ set aside
  • Judgment and verdict entered in favour of HIA, Apap Constructions Pty Limited and Mr Apap