Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 152

Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 152

ACS, as employer, breached its non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff by providing an unsafe system for unloading the cage, failing to stabilise the cage or supply safe tools, and failing to train plaintiff in safety, directly causing injury; Westfield, as occupier, did not owe a relevant duty of care in the circumstances as control and system were with ACS. Contributory negligence not established. Plaintiff entitled to damages against ACS; Westfield not liable. Cross-claims resolved according to contractual and statutory indemnities.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / After Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against ACS in $525,658; judgment for Westfield against plaintiff; cross-claims determined as per reasons.
Legal Topics
["occupiers' Liability" "employer's Duty of Care" 'injury at Workplace' 'contractual Indemnity' 'contributory Negligence' 'breach of Duty' 'damages Assessment']
['torts' 'negligence' 'workers Compensation'] ["occupiers' Liability" "employer's Duty of Care" 'injury at Workplace' 'contractual Indemnity' 'contributory Negligence' 'breach of Duty' 'damages Assessment']

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 / After Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Westfield (occupier) owed a duty of care to plaintiff, employee of independent contractor' 'Whether ACS (employer) breached duty of care to plaintiff' 'Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent' 'Entitlement to indemnity between defendants under contract and statute' 'Extent of damages for personal injury']

Ratio Decidendi

ACS, as employer, breached its non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff by providing an unsafe system for unloading the cage, failing to stabilise the cage or supply safe tools, and failing to train plaintiff in safety, directly causing injury; Westfield, as occupier, did not owe a relevant duty of care in the circumstances as control and system were with ACS. Contributory negligence not established. Plaintiff entitled to damages against ACS; Westfield not liable. Cross-claims resolved according to contractual and statutory indemnities.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against ACS in $525,658; judgment for Westfield against plaintiff; cross-claims determined as per reasons.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for Plaintiff against Second Defendant (ACS) in amount of $525,658.' "As between Plaintiff and Second Defendant (ACS), each party to bear own costs on plaintiff's claim." 'Judgment for First Defendant (Westfield) against Plaintiff.' "Plaintiff to pay First Defendant's costs." "Second Defendant/First...