Lorrimar v Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 371

Lorrimar v Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 371

The appeal was allowed because the primary judge denied procedural fairness to the appellant by resolving liability on grounds not put by the respondent or to the appellant, failed to identify and address the relevant statutory criteria under the Civil Liability Act, and based findings on matters not open on the evidence, producing a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision Following Trial in District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; orders of District Court set aside; matter remitted for new trial; costs orders as specified
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'breach' 'causation' 'procedural Fairness' 'appeal Competence']
['torts' 'procedural Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'breach' 'causation' 'procedural Fairness' 'appeal Competence']

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 / Court of Appeal Decision Following Trial in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether primary judge denied procedural fairness to appellant' 'Whether primary judge failed to properly consider scope of duty of care, risk of harm, breach and causation as required by s 5B, s 5C, s 5D Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)' 'Whether Serco owed and breached a duty of care by inadequate work instructions during lack of controlled hot water' 'Whether appellant was required to heat water to unsafe temperatures to comply with work instructions' "Whether appellant's injury was a result of Serco's negligence or appellant's own fault"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the primary judge denied procedural fairness to the appellant by resolving liability on grounds not put by the respondent or to the appellant, failed to identify and address the relevant statutory criteria under the Civil Liability Act, and based findings on matters not open on the evidence, producing a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; orders of District Court set aside; matter remitted for new trial; costs orders as specified

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Appeal allowed' 'Set aside the orders made by Curtis DCJ on 30 July 2013' 'Remit the matter to the District Court for a new trial' 'Costs of the first trial to be in the discretion of the judge presiding at the second trial' "Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the...