Sandra Bernadette Fullick v Jurox Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 40

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sandra Bernadette Fullick v Jurox Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 40 Hearing dates: 17-19 March and 25 March 2015 Decision date: 02 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see [103] Catchwords: Personal injury claim against host employer; system of work; employer's liability; assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987 Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Jones v Dunkell (1959) 101 CLR 298 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] NSWCA 99 Purkess v Crittendon (1965) 114 CLR 164 Shoalhaven City Council v Humphries [2013] NSWCA 390 Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 Woolworths v Strong (2012) 246 CLR 182 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sandra Bernadette Fullick (Plaintiff) Jurox Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Hart (Plaintiff) D O'Dowd (Defendant) File Number(s): 13/281724 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The Plaintiff's Claim 1. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury suffered by her on 5 December 2011 while she was working under the defendant's supervision and control as host employer at premises at Rutherford, New South Wales. The plaintiff was in fact employed by a labour hire company, Integrated Group Limited ("Integrated"), and had been contracted to work for the defendant in January 2010. 2. On 5 December 2011 the plaintiff was working in part of the factory premises known as the "powder room", in a process that saw bulk quantities of dextrose (a form of sugar) and nitrate (a form of salt) combined and placed into sachets which were heat sealed and then taken away for packing. That process is described in detail below. 3. The plaintiff claims that she suffered an injury to her lower back when manoeuvring a 25 kg bag of dextrose from the platform of an electric lifting device so as to deposit the contents of the bag into a hopper, which then fed the dextrose into the machine. 4. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent in the system of work employed by it in carrying out that process. In his opening, counsel for the plaintiff disavowed reliance on the repetitive nature of the work involved or the duration of the type of work. Rather, the plaintiff relied on the frank injury she alleges arose during that process.