FOX v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD & ORS [2008] NSWCA 23

FOX v LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LTD & ORS [2008] NSWCA 23

Leighton owed and breached a duty of care by allowing Mr Stewart and Mr Fox to work on the site without induction training, and proper induction training would probably have addressed the concrete pumping clean-out safety risk and contributed to avoiding the accident. Downview also breached its general law duty by haphazardly organising its subcontractors and failing to ensure induction and safe arrangements for persons carrying out its contracted concreting work, which materially contributed to the accident. The majority held contributory negligence was not established. Downview bore the greater responsibility as between tortfeasors and was required to contribute 80% of Leighton's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment Dated 14 December 2006
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; appeal dismissed with respect to the second respondent with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care of Principal Contractor to Subcontractors' 'construction Site Safety Induction Training' 'non Delegable Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'contribution Between Joint Tortfeasors']
['torts' 'occupational Health and Safety' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care of Principal Contractor to Subcontractors' 'construction Site Safety Induction Training' 'non Delegable Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'contribution Between Joint Tortfeasors']

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

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment Dated 14 December 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd was liable for the injury to the appellant.' 'Whether Downview Pty Ltd was liable for the injury to the appellant.' 'Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent.' 'Whether Downview Pty Ltd should be liable to contribute to Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leighton owed and breached a duty of care by allowing Mr Stewart and Mr Fox to work on the site without induction training, and proper induction training would probably have addressed the concrete pumping clean-out safety risk and contributed to avoiding the accident. Downview also breached its general law duty by haphazardly organising its subcontractors and failing to ensure induction and safe arrangements for persons carrying out its contracted concreting work, which materially contributed to the accident. The majority held contributory negligence was not established. Downview bore the greater responsibility as between tortfeasors and was required to contribute 80% of Leighton's...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; appeal dismissed with respect to the second respondent with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside order 2 of the trial judge dated 14 December 2006 dismissing the claims made by the plaintiff, Brian Allan Fox, against the first defendant, Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd and the third defendant, Downview Pty Ltd.' 'In lieu thereof, give judgment for the plaintiff against the first...