Hennessy v Patrick Stevedores Operations & Anor [2014] NSWSC 1716

Hennessy v Patrick Stevedores Operations & Anor [2014] NSWSC 1716

Patrick Stevedores, as occupier, owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to install a step at the entrance of the gatehouse, creating an unreasonable risk of slipping when wet; the breach was a necessary condition for the injury. FBIS, as employer, also breached its duty by failing to identify the risk and request reasonable modifications. The negligence of both defendants caused the plaintiff's injury. No contributory negligence was proven. Apportionment between defendants is 60% Patrick Stevedores, 40% FBIS. Damages are reduced under the Ghaleb/Malec principles due to pre-existing conditions and possible alternative outcomes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants, with apportionment, and cross-claims between defendants decided; damages and costs awarded as detailed in orders.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'apportionment of Liability' 'employer Liability' 'work Injury Damages' 'contributory Negligence']
['torts' 'negligence' 'occupiers Liability' 'workplace Injury'] ['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'apportionment of Liability' 'employer Liability' 'work Injury Damages' 'contributory Negligence']

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

Principal Judgment / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Patrick Stevedores owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as occupier' 'Whether FBIS owed a duty of care as employer' 'Whether either or both defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff' 'Whether the injuries and losses were caused by the breaches' 'Assessment of damages including application of the Ghaleb principle' 'Apportionment of liability between defendants']

Ratio Decidendi

Patrick Stevedores, as occupier, owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to install a step at the entrance of the gatehouse, creating an unreasonable risk of slipping when wet; the breach was a necessary condition for the injury. FBIS, as employer, also breached its duty by failing to identify the risk and request reasonable modifications. The negligence of both defendants caused the plaintiff's injury. No contributory negligence was proven. Apportionment between defendants is 60% Patrick Stevedores, 40% FBIS. Damages are reduced under the Ghaleb/Malec principles due to pre-existing conditions and possible alternative outcomes.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants, with apportionment, and cross-claims between defendants decided; damages and costs awarded as detailed in orders.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant (Patrick Stevedores) in the sum of $1,337,546' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant (FBIS) in the sum of $875,196, subject to s 151A Workers Compensation Act 1987' "Judgment for the first defendant against the second defendant on the first...