Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver [2001] HCA 24

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ

LIFTRONIC PTY LIMITED APPELLANT

AND

EROL UNVER RESPONDENT

Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver [2001] HCA 24

3 May 2001

S102/2000

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the Orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 7 February 2000. 3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for determination, in accordance with the reasons for judgment in this Court, of the nett amount for which judgment should be entered, and of the question of costs in that Court. 4. Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

B M J Toomey QC with P J Mooney for the appellant (instructed by Vandervords)

B J Gross QC with H N Kelly and S Thode for the respondent (instructed by Gibsons)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver

Negligence – Contributory negligence – Apportionment of responsibility – Whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside jury's apportionment of responsibility – Whether jury's apportionment reasonable.

Employer and employee – Negligence – Contributory negligence – Employer's duty to provide safe system and place of work – Conduct amounting to contributory negligence by employee – Respective roles of jury giving verdict at trial and appellate court deciding appeal against jury's apportionment.

Practice and procedure – When parties bound by conduct of case.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 10(1).

1. GLEESON CJ. The issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeal of New South Wales erred in setting aside, as perverse, a jury's apportionment of responsibility between plaintiff and defendant in a case where there was an admittedly justifiable finding of contributory negligence. 2. In Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd, this Court said[1]: