LEGGETT V. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 46/1936

LEGGETT V. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 46/1936

The plaintiff failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth; the ring-bolt hole was a well-known, visible feature and there was no breach of duty of care.

Parties
Plaintiff: Leggett; Defendant: The Commonwealth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 1938
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the defendant with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Employment Injury
Tort Negligence Duty of Care Employment Injury

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leggett

Plaintiff

The Commonwealth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a member of the Permanent Naval Forces has any right of action against the Commonwealth for injuries sustained on duty
  2. 2 Whether the Commonwealth breached a duty of care to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth; the ring-bolt hole was a well-known, visible feature and there was no breach of duty of care.

Court Disposition

judgment for the defendant with costs

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant with costs