Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard & Anor [2009] NSWCA 167

Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard & Anor [2009] NSWCA 167

The majority (Beazley JA, with Ipp JA concurring on limitation and evidence issues) found Bostik owed Mr Liddiard a duty of care as principal occupier and recipient of his services, and breached it by failing to take reasonable workplace safety precautions, and that the claim was not statute barred. However, the majority (Ipp JA and Basten JA) found Bostik did not owe a relevant duty of care in the circumstances, or, if owed, did not breach it. Basten JA's opinion was that no duty arose due to lack of control, direction, or legal obligation for workplace safety with respect to non-production Brolton employees. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, with judgment for Bostik.

Parties
Appellant: Bostik Australia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Warren Edward Liddiard; Second Respondent: Brolton Industries Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of District Court (2)-(6) set aside. Judgment for second defendant (Bostik) against plaintiff. Orders as to costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Limitation of Actions, Duty of Care, Employer and Labour Hire Arrangements, Occupier's Liability, Admissibility of Evidence, Apportionment of Liability, Statute Barred Claims
Torts Civil Procedure Negligence Limitation of Actions Duty of Care Employer and Labour Hire Arrangements Occupier's Liability Admissibility of Evidence +2 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 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bostik Australia Pty Ltd

Appellant

Warren Edward Liddiard

First Respondent

Brolton Industries Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bostik owed a duty of care to Mr Liddiard, an employee of a contractor/labour hire company
  2. 2 Whether Bostik breached any such duty of care
  3. 3 Whether Mr Liddiard's action was statute barred under Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 50C and s 50D

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Beazley JA, with Ipp JA concurring on limitation and evidence issues) found Bostik owed Mr Liddiard a duty of care as principal occupier and recipient of his services, and breached it by failing to take reasonable workplace safety precautions, and that the claim was not statute barred. However, the majority (Ipp JA and Basten JA) found Bostik did not owe a relevant duty of care in the circumstances, or, if owed, did not breach it. Basten JA's opinion was that no duty arose due to lack of control, direction, or legal obligation for workplace safety with respect to non-production Brolton employees. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, with judgment for Bostik.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of District Court (2)-(6) set aside. Judgment for second defendant (Bostik) against plaintiff. Orders as to costs.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal and set aside orders (2)-(6) made by Hungerford ADCJ in the District Court on 9 May 2008.
  • Enter judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.