Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions P/L & Anor

[2004] NSWCA 449

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Safe system of work
5. › Whether system of work unreasonably exposed employee to reasonably foreseeable risk of injury
6. › Whether system of work inherently unsafe
7. › Sufficiency of evidence to establish breach
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Employer's duty of care
4. › Employee with known susceptibility
5. › Duty to make inquiries as to employee's health
6. › Whether disclosure of prior injury on health questionnaire triggers duty of further inquiry
7. › Whether failure to inquire constitutes breach of duty
1. Evidence
2. › Burden of proof
3. › Proof of negligence
4. › Sufficiency of evidence
5. › Whether common sense requires finding of negligence
6. › Credibility findings by trial judge
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Extent of duty of trial judge to give reasons
5. › Whether adoption of defendant's submissions constitutes adequate reasoning
6. › Whether inadequate reasons warrant new trial
7. › Whether miscarriage of justice occurred

Quick Take

Where an employee discloses a prior work-related injury on a health questionnaire or employment application, the employer is put on notice and should make further inquiries as to the employee's medical condition. However, the failure to make such inquiries does not automatically constitute a breach of duty; breach only follows where the inquiries would have revealed information prompting a reasonably prudent employer to conclude that the risk to the particular employee was such that it was unreasonable to require the employee to perform the particular task. The case also confirms that sparse evidence of the system of work, combined with adverse credibility findings, will be fatal to a negligence claim even where the employer calls no positive evidence.