Worldon v Schofield & Ors [2014] NSWDC 11

Worldon v Schofield & Ors [2014] NSWDC 11

The plaintiff's employment was connected with the ACT because, from late June or early July 2007, the character of his employment changed to work usually performed at the Canberra gaol site, where the paid work component occurred, and the relevant statutory connection criteria pointed to the ACT rather than NSW. Schofield Fencing was negligent because the plaintiff was required to perform foreseeable, repeated, heavy and awkward manual handling on uneven ground without adequate risk assessment, training, supervision, safe system of work or mechanical assistance, despite available precautions and complaints by the plaintiff. That negligence caused the plaintiff's back injury, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Workplace Injury Damages Proceedings / Separate Determination of Questions Under UCPR R 28.2 Before Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded on all separate liability questions; damages assessment deferred to a later hearing.
Legal Topics
['workplace Injury' 'safe System of Work' 'manual Handling' 'territory of Connection of Employment' 'contributory Negligence' 'choice of Law']
['torts' 'negligence' 'employment Law' 'workers Compensation' 'conflict of Laws'] ['workplace Injury' 'safe System of Work' 'manual Handling' 'territory of Connection of Employment' 'contributory Negligence' 'choice of Law']

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

Civil Workplace Injury Damages Proceedings / Separate Determination of Questions Under UCPR R 28.2 Before Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory was the relevant state or territory of connection in relation to the plaintiff's employment at the date of injury." "Whether Schofield Fencing was liable in negligence for the plaintiff's injury." 'Whether contributory negligence by the plaintiff was proved, and if so the degree of reduction of damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's employment was connected with the ACT because, from late June or early July 2007, the character of his employment changed to work usually performed at the Canberra gaol site, where the paid work component occurred, and the relevant statutory connection criteria pointed to the ACT rather than NSW. Schofield Fencing was negligent because the plaintiff was required to perform foreseeable, repeated, heavy and awkward manual handling on uneven ground without adequate risk assessment, training, supervision, safe system of work or mechanical assistance, despite available precautions and complaints by the plaintiff. That negligence caused the plaintiff's back injury, and the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded on all separate liability questions; damages assessment deferred to a later hearing.

Orders

  • ["On the first question posed for separate determination, that at the time of the plaintiff's injury the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment was the ACT;" 'On the second question posed for separate determination, verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Schofield and...