Saab v Lecan Constructions Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2006] NSWSC 17

Saab v Lecan Constructions Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2006] NSWSC 17

Although Lecan was found to have been in charge of the construction work and to have owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care for his safety, the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he suffered injury as a result of a fall caused by a plastic fillet giving way on a plywood access ramp. The Court rejected important aspects of the plaintiff's evidence as unreliable or deliberately untruthful, found the supporting evidence insufficiently independent or persuasive, and treated inconsistencies in contemporaneous injury reports as significant. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendant, and the cross-claim necessarily failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries Pleaded in Negligence and Contract, With Cross Claim for Contribution And/or Indemnity / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant; verdict and judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['personal Injury at Construction Site' 'duty of Care of Building Contractor' 'safe Access to Work Site' 'proof of Accident and Causation' 'credibility of Plaintiff' 'contribution or Indemnity Against Employer' 'workers Compensation Impairment Threshold' 'non Economic Loss and Economic Loss']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'contract Law' 'workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['personal Injury at Construction Site' 'duty of Care of Building Contractor' 'safe Access to Work Site' 'proof of Accident and Causation' 'credibility of Plaintiff' 'contribution or Indemnity Against Employer' 'workers Compensation Impairment Threshold' 'non Economic Loss and Economic Loss']

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

Claim for Damages for Personal Injuries Pleaded in Negligence and Contract, With Cross Claim for Contribution And/or Indemnity / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Lecan Constructions Pty Limited (In Liquidation) had care, control and management of the construction site and owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care for his safety.' 'Whether the alleged plywood access ramp existed in the condition described by the plaintiff and whether a plastic fillet on it broke, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his lower back.' 'Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that his injury was caused by the alleged fall at the site.' "Whether any damages would be reduced by reference to City Formwork Constructions Pty Limited (In Liquidation)'s liability to the plaintiff or affected by the Workers Compensation Acts impairment threshold."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Lecan was found to have been in charge of the construction work and to have owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care for his safety, the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he suffered injury as a result of a fall caused by a plastic fillet giving way on a plywood access ramp. The Court rejected important aspects of the plaintiff's evidence as unreliable or deliberately untruthful, found the supporting evidence insufficiently independent or persuasive, and treated inconsistencies in contemporaneous injury reports as significant. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendant, and the cross-claim necessarily failed.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant; verdict and judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant.' 'Verdict and judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs." "The cross-claimant is to pay the cross-defendant's costs."]