He was a 20 year-old apprentice butcher dispatched by the employer to complete his apprenticeship at the premises of Supa IGA Orange Ltd ( the host employer). Mr Paul ( the worker) was employed by Skillset Ltd ( the employer), a labour-hire company. The insurer bears the onus of proving why the exclusion clause should be given effect. In particular, it will depend on the Court's interpretation of the wording used and how it applies to the given factual matrix. Whether a liability insurer can rely on an exclusion clause under a policy of insurance to deny indemnity to an insured will also depend on the facts of each case.However, whether a breach of that duty (if any) was the cause of the injuries, and the extent of any apportionment of liability under Section 151Z, will very much depend on the facts of each case. Yes, those employers owe a non-delegable duty of care to their employees. Labour-hire employers are not automatically liable in negligence for injuries sustained by their employees at the premises of a host employer.Where there are unchallenged factual findings, an appeal concerning the primary judge's interpretation of those findings will not be successful unless it can be shown that the interpretation was 'plainly wrong'.To what extent is a labour-hire employer negligent when its employee is injured on the premises of a 'host'? Can a liability insurer rely on an employment-related exclusion clause in the policy to deny the occupier indemnity? What is required to overturn a finding on appeal? The Court of Appeal has examined these issues in the following case.Īuthor: Chad Farah Judgement Date: 10 March 2020Ĭitation: Marketform Managing Agency Ltd for and on behalf of the Underwriting Members of Syndicate 2468 for the 2009 Year of Account v Ashcroft Supa IGA Orange Pty Ltd
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |