Sampson v Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 318

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Sampson v Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 318 HEARING DATE(S) : 5-8, 14 April 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 April 2004 JURISDICTION: Common Law JUDGMENT OF : Sperling J at 1 DECISION : Counsel are to bring in a short minute of quantified findings and of order as to verdicts and judgments.

CATCHWORDS : Negligence - employer's liability - occupier's liability - no question of principle Errol Clyde Sampson PARTIES : Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd A J Lucas Networks Ltd & Downer Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a Lucas Downer Joint Venture FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20015/02 Mr W P Kearns SC with Mr R Foord for the Plaintiff COUNSEL : Mr P R Arden SC with Mr P N Khandhar for the First Defendant Mr A P Coleman with Mr D M Jay for the Second Defendant Kingston Swift Solicitors for the Plaintiff SOLICITORS : Turkslegal Solicitors for the First Defendant Hunt & Hunt Lawyers for the Second Defendant

- 29 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Sperling J

Friday, 23 April 2004

20015/02 Errol Clyde Sampson v Prest & O'Connor Pty Ltd & Anor

Judgment (No. 2) 1 His Honour: The plaintiff, Errol Clyde Sampson, sues the first defendant, Prest and O'Connor Pty Limited, and the second defendant, A J Lucas Networks Limited and Downer Construction (Australia) Pty Limited trading as Lucas Downer Joint Venture, for damages for personal injury received by him on 12 November 1999. The injury was received at Dubbo in the course of the plaintiff's employment with the first defendant. The plaintiff was, at the time, on the premises of the second defendant in Dubbo. 2 Both defendants asserted contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendants also cross-claimed against each other claiming indemnity or contribution, but there was no claim made at the trial for a contractual indemnity. 3 On 8 April 2004, I gave my decision that the first defendant was liable, that the second defendant was not, and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. My reasons follow.