Felk Industries Pty Ltd v Mallet & Anor

[2005] NSWCA 111

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Duty of care to independent contractor's employee
5. › Specialist contractor carrying out specialised work
6. › Whether occupier entitled to assume contractor-employee would safeguard against readily visible hazard
7. › Whether Papatonakis principle applied
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Independent contractor
5. › Distinction between access to premises and performance of specialised work
6. › Whether occupier's duty extends to risks arising during specialised work
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Whether presence of obstruction was a cause of injury or merely a condition
5. › Application of common sense test
6. › March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Bullock order
4. › Whether costs of successful defendant reasonably incurred by plaintiff
5. › Whether conduct of unsuccessful defendant made it fair to impose liability for successful defendant's costs
6. › Gould v Vaggelas

Quick Take

An occupier of premises is entitled to assume that a properly trained employee of a specialist independent contractor will safeguard himself against readily visible hazards encountered in the course of performing specialised work. The Papatonakis principle is not qualified merely because the hazard may 'tempt' the contractor-employee to adopt an unsafe method of work. The distinction between Thompson v Woolworths and the Papatonakis principle turns on whether the occupier established a system of work to which the contractor was required to conform.