Cox v DAC Finance (NSW/QLD) Pty Limited & Anor [2024] NSWDC 22

Cox v DAC Finance (NSW/QLD) Pty Limited & Anor [2024] NSWDC 22

Both defendants, as occupiers of the premises, breached their duty of care by failing to isolate or give sufficient warning for an elevator power interruption test, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual injury to the plaintiff. The defendants' negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's ongoing disability. There was no evidence the employer was at fault or should be apportioned liability under s 151Z. The plaintiff is entitled to assessed damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'damages' 'expert Evidence' 'assessment of Damages' "apportionment Under S 151 Z Workers' Compensation Act"]
['torts' 'civil Liability' "occupiers' Liability"] ['negligence' 'damages' 'expert Evidence' 'assessment of Damages' "apportionment Under S 151 Z Workers' Compensation Act"]

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 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants as occupiers owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)' "Whether the defendants were negligent and if their negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries" "Whether the plaintiff's damages should be apportioned under s 151Z of the Workers' Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)" 'Assessment of quantum of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants, as occupiers of the premises, breached their duty of care by failing to isolate or give sufficient warning for an elevator power interruption test, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual injury to the plaintiff. The defendants' negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's ongoing disability. There was no evidence the employer was at fault or should be apportioned liability under s 151Z. The plaintiff is entitled to assessed damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $925,435.42' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless a party can show an entitlement to some other costs order" 'The exhibits may be returned' "Liberty to apply on 7 days' notice...