Hubbard v Stephen Wells Trading as Wells Plumbing & Anor [2007] NSWDC 93

Hubbard v Stephen Wells Trading as Wells Plumbing & Anor [2007] NSWDC 93

The plaintiff was determined to be a contractor, not an employee, based on the totality of the relationship including lack of mutuality of obligation, inconsistent payments, provision of own tools, and freedom to work for others despite the defendant's control over work performed. The defendant breached his duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the presence and danger of high voltage cables, directly causing the injuries. The cross defendant is liable to indemnify the cross claimant under the relevant policy as the plaintiff was not an employee.

Parties
Plaintiff: Adam Luke Hubbard; Defendant: Stephen Wells trading as Wells Plumbing; Cross Defendant: Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; judgment for the first cross claimant against the cross defendant.
Legal Topics
Worker Classification, Duty of Care, Assessment of Damages, Contributory Negligence, Liability Insurance, Gratuitous Attendant Care
Negligence Personal Injury Insurance Worker Classification Duty of Care Assessment of Damages Contributory Negligence Liability Insurance +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Luke Hubbard

Plaintiff

Stephen Wells trading as Wells Plumbing

Defendant

Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the plaintiff Adam Hubbard an employee or a subcontractor at the time of the injury?
  2. 2 Did the defendant Stephen Wells breach a duty of care owed to the plaintiff?
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff contributively negligent?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was determined to be a contractor, not an employee, based on the totality of the relationship including lack of mutuality of obligation, inconsistent payments, provision of own tools, and freedom to work for others despite the defendant's control over work performed. The defendant breached his duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the presence and danger of high voltage cables, directly causing the injuries. The cross defendant is liable to indemnify the cross claimant under the relevant policy as the plaintiff was not an employee.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; judgment for the first cross claimant against the cross defendant.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $174,119.89.
  • First defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs as assessed on the ordinary basis up to and including 4 November 2005 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.