Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59

High Court of Australia Gleeson CJ Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (M115/1998) [1999] HCA 59

Summary Negligence - Duty of care - Statutory authority for stevedoring industry - Worker directed to places of work involving risk of injury - Whether duty to take affirmative action to protect worker - Factors relevant to determination of existence of duty. Statutes - Interpretation - Transfer of liabilities from one statutory authority to another - Meaning of "liabilities and obligations" - Whether includes inchoate causes of action. Words and phrases - "liabilities and obligations". Stevedoring Industry Act 1949 (Cth), s 13(a). Stevedoring Industry Act 1956 (Cth), ss 8, 17(1)(a), 17(1)(d), 17(1)(1), 17(1)(o), 17(1)(p), 17(2), 17(3), 18(1), 20, 23(4), 25(b), 25(e), 28(b)(i), 33(1), 33(2), 35, 36(1). Stevedoring Industry Acts (Termination) Act 1977 (Cth), ss 14(a), 14(b), 15. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977 (Cth). ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs.

2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and remit the matter to that Court for determination of the remaining issues in the appeal to that Court, including the costs of that appeal.

The following written judgments were delivered: —

10 November 1999 Gleeson CJ.

1. Two issues arise in this appeal. The first is whether the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority (the Authority) owed a duty of care to the late Mr Crimmins, a waterside worker. The second is whether, upon the true construction of the legislation under which the respondent took the place of the Authority, and assumed all its existing liabilities and obligations as at a certain date, the respondent is legally responsible for a breach of such a duty of care which resulted in injury after that date.