What happened
On 1 May 2015, Gray injured his back while picking at a Coles distribution centre, after drawing a water carton towards himself, lifting it and turning. He was employed by a labour hire company and had received lifting instruction from Coles. The trial judge rejected both his negligence claim against Coles and Coles’ contractual cross-claim against Chandler.
The issues
Beyond foreseeability, Gray had to establish that further training, pick sticks or pallet turning were reasonable precautions that would have prevented his injury. The appeal also concerned exclusion of a new expert report served on the first trial day and the scope of supervision and indemnity obligations under the labour supply agreement.
The court's decision
The Court held that the accepted facts supported the adequacy of the lifting instruction, and Gray’s own expert did not support using a pick stick for the carton. Evidence did not establish the benefit of pallet turning against its cost and additional collision risks. Exclusion of the late report disclosed no error, and both appeals were dismissed with costs.
Understanding the figures
Gray received no damages because liability was not established. His appeal concerned liability only; the trial assessment of quantum and apportionment was theoretical. Each unsuccessful appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in its appeal.
What this case shows
A general allegation that a workplace needed a safe system was insufficient. A claimant proposing a particular change needed evidence of how it would avoid the injury, including its wider operational burden and any new risks it would create.
Why another case may differ
This case applied ss 5B–5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 to the host’s responsibility for a 2015 workplace injury. It does not determine every workers compensation or employer damages claim. The contractual result depended on this agreement, and the trial judge’s theoretical damages assessment was not an award.
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? →