What happened
While at work, the plaintiff was travelling with colleagues in an elevator when power was cut for a backup-generator test and the descending cabin stopped abruptly; she alleged an axial jolt to her back. The test was conducted under normal load without warning passengers, and she later reported persistent pain and inability to work; the District Court accepted treating evidence that the incident rendered pre-existing degenerative spinal changes symptomatic.
The issues
At trial, the issues were whether the owner and related operating company, as occupiers, breached a duty by failing to isolate the lift or warn passengers, whether that breach caused the back injury, and whether s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act required apportionment to the employer. On appeal, the decisive question became whether the conduct of the people who planned and carried out the test could legally and evidentially be attributed to either sued company.
The court's decision
The District Court found the defendants jointly and severally liable and assessed AUD 925,435.42, including AUD 246,500 for non-economic loss and substantial past and future economic loss. In DAC Finance (NSW/QLD) Pty Ltd v Cox [2024] NSWCA 170, the Court of Appeal held that the personnel responsible for the test were employees of DPG Services, the plaintiff’s employer, and that no breach by the sued companies was proved; it set aside the trial judgment and entered judgment for the defendants, so the District Court figure was not a final award.
Understanding the figures
The District Court assessed a historical total of AUD 925,435.42, but the Court of Appeal wholly set aside that judgment and entered judgment for the defendants. The total and its components are therefore trial assessments, not damages finally awarded to the plaintiff.
What this case shows
The trial reasons illustrate the importance of simple precautions—isolating a lift or warning users—during a planned maintenance test, and the scrutiny applied to inadequately reasoned medical opinions. The appellate result is more decisive: where ownership, business operations and employment are divided among related companies, proof of a dangerous event is not enough without evidence attributing the relevant breach to the particular defendants sued.
Why another case may differ
This is a historical analysis of the trial findings read with the later appeal; it does not present the trial liability ruling or AUD 925,435.42 as a surviving result. The appeal turned on attribution of breach to the sued entities rather than rejecting the occurrence of injury, and these decisions alone do not determine any separate entitlement against the employer or the plaintiff’s ultimate compensation position.
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? →