Samper v ASB-Tech Services & Anor [1999] NSWSC 462

Samper v ASB-Tech Services & Anor [1999] NSWSC 462

The court found the plaintiff’s version of events lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the evidence, including witness testimony and photographic records. The plaintiff was not acting in the course of his employment when injured and did not establish negligence against either defendant. Consequently, the defendants were not liable in negligence, and the cross-claims for indemnity also failed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hipolito Samper; First Defendant: ASB-Tech Services Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Electricity Commission of NSW t/as Pacific Power
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/negligence / Final Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for both defendants; cross-claims dismissed; liberty reserved to apply regarding damages and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Workplace Safety, Occupational Health and Safety, Workers Compensation, Credibility of Witnesses
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Workplace Safety Occupational Health and Safety Workers Compensation Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hipolito Samper

Plaintiff

ASB-Tech Services Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Electricity Commission of NSW t/as Pacific Power

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/negligence / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ASB-Tech Services Pty Ltd breached its duty to provide a safe place or system of work resulting in injury to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether Pacific Power breached its duty to provide a safe place or system of work resulting in injury to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was injured in the course of employment and whether contributory negligence applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff’s version of events lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the evidence, including witness testimony and photographic records. The plaintiff was not acting in the course of his employment when injured and did not establish negligence against either defendant. Consequently, the defendants were not liable in negligence, and the cross-claims for indemnity also failed.

Court Disposition

Verdict for both defendants; cross-claims dismissed; liberty reserved to apply regarding damages and costs reserved.

Orders

  • Verdict for the first defendant against the plaintiff.
  • Verdict for the second defendant against the plaintiff.