Todorovic v Moussa [2005] NSWCA 100

Todorovic v Moussa [2005] NSWCA 100

The respondents were carrying out building work and construction work when Mr Moussa provided and placed the ladder as the means of access from the ground floor to the first floor for tradesmen, including the appellant. That access task was not delegated to the appellant with the gyprocking work. Because Regulation 73(2) required the respondents to provide and maintain safe means of access, and breach was common ground if the duty applied, the appellant was entitled to succeed for breach of statutory duty. The primary judge erred by treating the only relevant work as the gyprocking work. The assessments of general damages and diminution of earning capacity were also inadequate and were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment for the Respondents
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Statutory Duty Under Regulation 73' 'safe Means of Access on Construction Site' 'head Contractor Liability to Sub Contractor' 'assessment of General Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'indemnity Costs']
['industrial Law' 'construction Safety' 'damages' 'costs'] ['breach of Statutory Duty Under Regulation 73' 'safe Means of Access on Construction Site' 'head Contractor Liability to Sub Contractor' 'assessment of General Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Appeal / Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment for the Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents owed the appellant a statutory duty under Regulation 73 of the Construction Safety Regulations 1950 to provide and maintain safe means of access to the first floor where he was required to work.' 'Whether the respondents were carrying out building work or construction work by providing the ladder, notwithstanding delegation of gyprocking work to the appellant.' "Whether the primary judge's assessment of general damages was manifestly inadequate." 'Whether damages for future economic loss should be assessed for diminution of earning capacity beyond six months earnings as a gyprock installer.' 'Whether costs of the first trial should be awarded on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were carrying out building work and construction work when Mr Moussa provided and placed the ladder as the means of access from the ground floor to the first floor for tradesmen, including the appellant. That access task was not delegated to the appellant with the gyprocking work. Because Regulation 73(2) required the respondents to provide and maintain safe means of access, and breach was common ground if the duty applied, the appellant was entitled to succeed for breach of statutory duty. The primary judge erred by treating the only relevant work as the gyprocking work. The assessments of general damages and diminution of earning capacity were also inadequate and were...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The verdict, judgment and orders made by Taylor DCJ on 8 October 2003 were set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, there was to be a verdict and judgment for the appellant against the respondents in the amount of $118,529.87 to take effect from 8 October 2003.' "The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of...