28 May 2025
Given the actual physical features of the rear lane, the plaintiff's routine and prolonged exposure cleaning the same rear lanes, and the minimal cost and difficulty of providing helmets and conducting a risk assessment, the defendant was negligent in failing to assess the risk and to provide helmets and instruction; causation established; defendant 100% liable.
21 Dec 2020
The Magistrate properly exercised the amendment power under s27 because no irremediable unfairness was caused and procedural remedies were available; the prosecution proved the statutory result under s6A (failure to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, safety and provision of information/training/supervision) and produced sufficient evidence of foreseeable risk to sustain convictions; therefore the appeals against the four convictions fail and convictions are affirmed.
16 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal denied because none of the proposed grounds met the reasonable prospect of success threshold: the trial court's findings that the collapse was due to inability to bear the combined weight of three participants and that the risk of that collapse was reasonably foreseeable were supportable on the evidence; the defendant elected not to call expert evidence and cannot now complain; specific pleading of precise cause was unnecessary where duty and breach were pleaded; latent defect was not demonstrated; the balancing exercise was fact sensitive and correctly performed; and no basis…
13 Apr 2012
Given the nature and settlement of the 2006 incident, the subsequent conduct of the parties and absence of any objective indicators of ongoing risk, the risk of the 1st defendant attacking colleagues was neither real nor reasonably foreseeable and the Company's response (investigation and verbal warning) was reasonable; therefore the Company did not breach its duty and is not liable.
27 Jan 2010
The defendant was not liable because the court found on the evidence that rolling a 25-lb glass turntable into a purpose-built cabinet using the provided rubber mat did not create a foreseeable health or safety risk, the employer had taken reasonable steps including training and appropriate equipment, and the plaintiff's injury was not proved to result from the defendant's negligence or breach of statutory duty.
18 Dec 2009
The trial judge's finding that supervisors knew or ought to have known of repeated provocative and pestering conduct by the co-worker, creating a real and reasonably foreseeable risk of quarrels and physical harm, was supported by the evidence; the Court of Appeal will not disturb that factual finding as it was not plainly wrong, and therefore the employer was liable and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Apr 2009
The defendant breached its duty by failing to curb the coworker Hung's persistent harassment and provocation which, given the contrasting personalities and repeated conduct known to supervisors, made physical injury a reasonably foreseeable real risk; therefore the employer was negligent and liable for the plaintiff's injuries and associated damages.
9 Jan 2001
On the evidence the court was not satisfied that written instructions distributed to each employee were necessary to ensure safety in the circumstances and was not satisfied there was a real, as opposed to fanciful, risk that the 1.6m gates with the overhead concrete tie beam exposed workers to contact with moving parts; convictions for both the statutory and regulatory offences were therefore unsafe and were quashed.
13 Jun 1975
The defendant architects failed to take adequate precautions and calculations for the site-specific drainage conditions; the drainage system as designed/installed was inadequate and that inadequacy caused the plaintiffs' loss, so the plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages including remedial costs and solatium.