High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
GAUDRON, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ
Zdenko Josip slivak & anor APPELLANTS
AND
LURGI (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR RESPONDENTS
Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2001] HCA 6
15 February 2001
A18/2000
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia
Representation:
C J Kourakis QC with A L Tokley for the appellants (instructed by Moran & Partners)
R C White QC with A V Possingham for the first respondent (instructed by Kelly & Co)
No appearance for the second respondent
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd
Workers' Compensation (SA) – Injury – Statutory duty – Workman injured by collapse of structure negligently erected by employer – Structure could not have collapsed if erected according to design – Whether designer in breach of s 24(2a)(a) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) in failing to incorporate in the design elements to remove risks arising from negligent erection of structure.
Words and phrases – "so far as is reasonably practicable".
Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA), ss 23, 24.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA), s 54.
1. GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW AND HAYNE JJ. This is an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Doyle CJ, Bleby and Martin JJ), dismissing an appeal from a decision of Prior J. At both levels, the first appellant ("Mr Slivak") and second appellant ("Mrs Slivak") were unsuccessful. Mr Slivak pleaded negligence and breach of statutory duty against the respondents in respect of injuries received in an industrial accident in 1993. Mrs Slivak claimed damages under s 33 of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) for loss of consortium[1]. If successful, the appellants seek to have the appeal to the Full Court allowed, to have judgment entered for them and to have the matter referred to the trial judge for the assessment of damages.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate