CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LTD. V. HODBY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA «

WCROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LTD,

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at.. Sy dney

on. ——

"4

CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LIMITED

; HODBY

ORDER

Appeal allowed with costs. Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside and in lieu thereof order that.

the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LIMITED

HODBY

BARWICK C.J.

CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LIMITED

rH

ODBY

In this appeal I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by brother Menzies. I agree entirely with the reasons he gives for allowing the appeal and

restoring the judgment of the primary judge.

CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIES LTD.

HODBY

JUDGMENT McTIERNAN J.

CROSSLE & CAMERON INDUSTRIZS LTD.

ve

HODBY

I am of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence against the defendant and that the judgment of the Full Court for the plaintiff should stand. For my part, the inference of negligence is of a compelling character and the Full Court offended no rule protecting the finding of a trial judge from

interference by a court of appeal: Benmax v. Austin Motor Co.

La. [1955] A.C. 370, per Viscount Simonds at pp. 373, 374.

The negligence which the plaintiff alleges is breach of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plain- tiff, then a servant of the defendant. The particulars of the negligence are alleged breaches of the duty, so far as it extends to the provision of a safe system of work, a safe place of work and effective supervision. The defendant alleges contributory negligence, the particulars of which relate to the plaintiff's method of working. No one was called to give evidence on the defendant's side. The plaintiff gave evidence and he called three persons to give evidence. The credibility of the plaintiff or of any witness is not attacked.