17 Sept 2024
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove that her injury was caused by pulling the route placard or that the employer breached any duty to provide a safe system for that simple task; contemporaneous medical records and plaintiff's own admissions undermined her account; claim dismissed.
27 Mar 2024
The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence and the joint orthopaedic expert's opinions that both plaintiffs suffered the injuries claimed and reached maximal medical improvement with ongoing impairments affecting their ability to perform heavy construction work; accordingly the court allowed the claims for pre-trial and future loss of earnings in full and awarded loss of earning capacity to P1, entered judgment for the stated sums against D1, D2 and D3, and ordered interest and costs nisi against the defendants.
16 Jun 2008
The court found, on the overall impression of indicia (control, provision of tools, fixed hours, daily pay plus overtime, transport and supervision), that the Plaintiff was an employee; the Defendant owed a duty of care both as employer and under common law neighbourhood principle; the Defendant breached that duty by failing to secure the high‑pressure discharge hose and by not ensuring a safe system of work; that breach caused the Plaintiff's loss of sight; contributory negligence was rejected; judgment for Plaintiff with quantified damages awarded.
28 Apr 2006
The plaintiff's evidence was materially inconsistent and not credible; on the balance of probabilities the court could not determine how the injury was sustained nor infer negligence by the employer; res ipsa loquitur did not apply; therefore the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant was liable and the action must be dismissed.
12 Dec 2005
Judge accepted plaintiff probably fell and that the fall caused cervical radiculopathy but found plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the employer provided an unsafe system of work or that carrying the samples caused the fall or carpal tunnel syndrome; measured weights and testimony demonstrated the load was likely lighter (about 12–15 lbs) and expert evidence did not support the plaintiff's causation theories; claim dismissed.
27 Sept 2000
Blanket exclusion of applicants on the basis of an associate's mental illness (schizophrenia) was not justified under s12(2) because the employer failed to conduct individualized assessments; measured individualised, age-corrected risks (approximately 4% reduced further by absence of prodromal signs) and comparative risk analysis showed no real risk to safety sufficient to displace s11 protections; therefore s12(2) exception did not apply and the refusals/dismissal were unlawful.
30 Sept 1999
The court found no contributory negligence because the employer required an unsafe method of transport and the plaintiff had no realistic or safe opportunity to move; damages were quantified by awarding agreed general damages, calculating pre-trial and future loss using a median earnings figure, applying a 20% reduction to the chosen multiplier of 12 (yielding 9.6) to reflect risk of degenerative deterioration, awarding a separate sum for loss of earning capacity for psychiatric-related labour market disadvantage, and allowing specified future medical costs and special damages; interest and c…