Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1985] HCA 3

High Court of Australia Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ. Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1985] HCA 3

ORDER

1. Appeal dismissed as against the first respondent.

2. Appeal allowed as against the second respondent.

3. Order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia set aside in so far as it dismisses the appeal to that Court against the second respondent and, in lieu of the part of the order so set aside, order —

(a) that the appeal to the Federal Court against the second respondent be allowed with costs against the second respondent except so far as the appellant's costs were incurred by reason of the appeal against the first respondent;

(b) that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for the second respondent against the appellant be set aside;

(c) that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to assess the appellant's damages and to enter judgment for the appellant against the second respondent for the damages so assessed adjusted to allow for the appellant's contributory negligence and for the appellant's costs of the action in the Supreme Court except so far as they were incurred by the joinder of the first respondent.

4. Appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.

5. Second respondent pay the appellant's costs except so far as they were incurred by reason of the appeal against the first respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1985, Feb. 5 Mason J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissing an appeal from a decision of Muirhead J., in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in which his Honour dismissed an action by the appellant against the respondents for damages for personal injuries sustained during the course of his employment by the first respondent, the Australian Telecommunications Commission ("Telecom"). The injuries were sustained on 20 January 1977 when the appellant fell from a ladder while performing work for Telecom at premises occupied by the second respondent, Northern Research Pty. Ltd. ("Northern"). The basis of the appellant's claim against Telecom was that it was negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work. The basis of his claim against Northern was that it erected and permitted the use of an unsafe pole and wire on its premises and failed to warn Telecom and the appellant of the condition of the pole in breach of its duty of care owed to the appellant as an invitee. Both Telecom and Northern pleaded contributory negligence.