Booksan Pty Ltd, Jaymay Constructions Pty Ltd v Wehbe, Elmir & Others; GIO General Ltd and & GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Wehbe, Elmir & Others

[2006] NSWCA 3

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Occupier of private land
4. › Whether obviousness of risk negates duty of care owed by occupier to entrant
5. › Whether additional matters may be factored in at duty stage for occupier-entrant relationship
1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Employer and employee
4. › Whether obviousness of risk negates employer's duty of care
5. › Whether additional matters may be factored in at duty stage for employer-employee relationship
1. Negligence
2. › Contributory negligence
3. › Young and inexperienced workers
4. › Apportionment
5. › Whether trial judge erred in finding no contributory negligence
6. › Relevance of employer's direction to leave platform
7. › Relevance of obviousness of risk
1. Statutes
2. › Construction Safety Regulations 1950 (NSW)
3. › Regulations 122(5) and 122(7)
4. › Whether regulations breached by overloading hoist
5. › Whether regulations stipulate or provide mechanism for determining limiting load

Quick Take

The obviousness of a risk is relevant to breach and contributory negligence but does not negate the duty of care owed by an occupier of private land or an employer. Following the repeal of the Statutory Duties (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (NSW) and the enactment of s 5A of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), contributory negligence is available as a defence to breach of statutory duty claims that are in substance claims for damages for harm resulting from negligence, but only where the cause of action accrues after 6 December 2002. Under a joint insured insurance policy with a deemed separate policy clause, the conduct of one insured (an employee) does not affect the rights of another insured (the employer) under the policy.