Transfield Pty Ltd v Fallavolita [1984] HCA 66
The majority held that reg. 73(3) was applicable because the respondent, though engaged in supervisory and peripatetic duties, was at the time engaged in his employment and exposed to the risk at a place from which he could fall more than 1.8 m. Therefore, the employer was in breach of its duty under the regulation, and the Court of Appeal was correct to order a new trial limited to damages.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed by majority
- Legal Topics
- ['negligence' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'construction Safety' 'workplace Safety Regulations']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the appellant was in breach of reg. 73(3) of the Construction Safety Regulations 1950 (NSW) for failing to provide means for securing the safety of a person working at a place from which he would be liable to fall more than 1.8 m' "Whether the respondent was 'working at a place' within the meaning of reg. 73(3) at the time of his fall"]
Ratio Decidendi
The majority held that reg. 73(3) was applicable because the respondent, though engaged in supervisory and peripatetic duties, was at the time engaged in his employment and exposed to the risk at a place from which he could fall more than 1.8 m. Therefore, the employer was in breach of its duty under the regulation, and the Court of Appeal was correct to order a new trial limited to damages.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed by majority
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment