What happened

In the 2001 accident, an underwater shackle securing the gangway's counterweight failed. The installed steel was unsuitable for prolonged seawater immersion. Despite earlier gangway failures and a recommendation for regular inspection, the employer relied on repairs after faults occurred.

The issues

The principal issues concerned proof of what the contractor had ordered and whether proper inspection by the employer would have prevented failure. The appeals also addressed allocation of responsibility, a late funds-management claim, interest and the different statutory costs rules.

The court's decision

The court held that the plaintiff bore the legal burden concerning the order, but found it discharged by the documents and supplier evidence. Proper inspection would probably have exposed the corrosion, and responsibility remained 65% with the employer and 35% with the contractor. Damages stood, with the appeal and cross-appeal succeeding principally on costs.

Understanding the figures

The historical judgments left standing were AUD 1,141,238 against employer Ports and AUD 1,368,304.70 against contractor AWH. These were different statutory assessments of the same injury, not cumulative recoveries. Inter-party contribution orders also applied, and the court varied the trial costs position between Ports and the plaintiff and other costs orders.

What this case shows

An error about the burden of proof need not change the result where the evidence satisfies the correct burden. Engaging a specialist contractor also did not remove the employer's responsibility to inspect equipment with a history of failures. Damages and costs required separate attention to their governing regimes.

Why another case may differ

Different damages regimes applied to the employer and third-party claims, so the two judgment figures must not be added together. The case concerns a 2001 accident and the legislation applied to it. Permission for the funds-management claim depended on the arguments actually run below and when the relevant medical material became available.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →