Australia: Shearing through issues of credit, design and construction of premises and an employer's liability

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 6 October 2011
Article by Emma Sheehan

Judgment date: 27 September 2011

Hill & Anor v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291

New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • The absence of prior accidents and complaints is only one factor to be taken into account in determining breach of duty.
  • Even if the design and construction of premises comply with the relevant Australian Standards, an occupier of premises may be found to have breached its duty of care to a plaintiff.
  • When determining an employer's liability, for the purpose of assessing the reduction to be made pursuant to s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act (the WCA), the Court must weigh the different considerations arising in each specific case.


The plaintiff, Mr Mark Richards (Richards), was employed as a wool presser by MF & DA Alchin (the Alchins). The Alchins were engaged by Tony Hill and Diana Hill (the Hills), the appellants in the appeal, to provide a shearing team in a shed owned and occupied by the Hills.

The shearing shed on the Hills' premises had been constructed in 2003. When the shearing shed was built, the design and construction adhered to recommendations contained in a WorkCover Guide in relation to health and safety in the shearing industry. Mr Hill gave evidence that a co-author of the WorkCover publication, who was also either a WorkCover inspector or representative of the Australian Workers Union at the relevant time, had inspected the shed and made positive comments about its design and construction. Since the construction of the shearing shed there had been no complaints that the shearing board or the stairs were slippery.

Part of Richards' duties as a wool presser required him to ensure sheep were in a pen so that the shearers could work efficiently. The shed was designed such that there was a raised board or platform on which the shearing took place. The board was erected over a concrete floor. There were stairs at one end of the board which provided access between the board and the floor of the shearing shed. There was a handrail along one side of those stairs. There was a gate at the top of the shearing board.

Richards alleged that, on 31 October 2005, he was working at the Hills' shearing shed. Mr Hill was present at the shearing shed throughout the course of the morning working as a wool classer. Mr Michael Alchin was also present and had seen Richards walk up and down the stairs a number of times throughout the course of the morning.

Richards had been working for several hours on the morning of 31 October 2005 during which time he had traversed the stairs between the board and the floor on several occasions. Richards had been on the board when he closed the gate behind him before turning to descend the stairs. Richards alleged that he placed the ball of his right foot on a yellow line painted on the edge of the board at the top of the stairs. As he did so his right foot slipped out from beneath him causing him to fall down the stairs and injure his back.

Mr Ralph Corby, who was working in the shearing shed, had had a conversation with Richards before work was commenced on the morning of Richards' accident during which Richards said he had a sore back. The conversation was overheard by Mr Kevin Campbell. Both Mr Corby and Mr Campbell were called to give evidence about the conversation and their evidence in respect of the content of the conversation was accepted by the trial Judge.

Mr Waddell, Richards' expert, gave evidence that, despite the surface of the board being slip resistant and the design of the stairs being in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards, the Hills should have applied a non-slip strip on the edge of the board to increase the safety to people descending the board and stairs because of the build-up of contaminants (meaning sheep urine or excrement picked up in the pens) on the soles of Richards' shoes as he left the penning area.

Mr Waddell also gave evidence that the coefficients of friction in the Standards were designed for normal pedestrian conditions, and that the conditions in the shearing shed were not normal because of other factors such as the speed of work in shearing sheds and the presence of contaminants on the floor.

The Hills called no expert evidence in response to the evidence of Mr Waddell even though it was apparent from one of Mr Waddell's reports that they had obtained a report from Mr David Beck upon which he commented.

Supreme Court Decision

Richards brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales alleging the Hills were negligent.

The trial Judge, Studdert AJ, found that many aspects of Richards' evidence were both unsatisfactory and incorrect. He noted that Richards had provided Mr Waddell incorrect histories of how his injury occurred. The trial Judge also found that Richards' evidence in relation to his income prior to the accident was "both unsatisfactory and untruthful". The trial Judge also found that Richards' evidence in relation to his: drug use; requirement to use a walking stick; level of disability; and reliance upon his wife to provide him with attendant and domestic assistance, was unsatisfactory.

The Hills contended that, given Richards' credit was in issue and that there were inconsistent histories about how Richards' accident occurred, Richards' account of how he fell and sustained injury should not be accepted. Despite the unsatisfactory and untruthful evidence given by Richards, the trial Judge found that on the balance of probabilities Richards did fall as alleged.

The trial Judge determined that Richards' damages should be reduced for his own contributory negligence by 15% for failure to use the handrail. In this regard it is important to note that Richards had denied the handrail was in place. The trial Judge did not accept Richards' evidence in this regard and found the handrail was in situ at the relevant time.

The trial Judge also found that the Alchins, as Richards' employer, were in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to Richards. In apportioning liability for the purposes of s 151Z of the WCA, the trial Judge apportioned liability two-thirds to the Hills and one-third to the Alchins.

The trial Judge assessed Richards' damage at $816,190. After reductions for Richards' own contributory negligence and the Alchins' liability were taken into account, Richards was entitled to a verdict in his favour in the sum of $462,508 plus costs.

Court of Appeal

The Hills appealed the findings of the trial Judge in respect of: whether Richards had injured himself in the manner alleged; whether there had been a breach of the duty of care owed by the Hills; whether there had been contributory negligence by Richards; and the extent of any apportionment between the Hills and the Alchins for the purposes of s 151Z of the WCA. In the Court of Appeal, Giles JA delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court. Giles JA noted the trial Judge's findings in relation to Richards' credit and the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence Richards gave. He found that the trial Judge's findings "command[ed] respect" and he was not convinced that there was any reason to disturb the trial Judge's findings that Richards' accident had occurred as alleged.

Giles JA noted that the trial Judge had, quite correctly, found that compliance with the relevant Australian Standards was a consideration in determining whether there had been a breach of the Hills' duty of care. He concurred with the trial Judge that compliance with the relevant Australian Standards did not exculpate an occupier of premises of liability. Giles JA did, however, conclude that the trial Judge had adopted the incorrect test in determining whether there had been a breach of the Hills' duty of care to Richards. The trial Judge had made the determination by reference to the often-cited passage in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt 2, commonly known as the "Shirt Calculus", in finding the Hills had breached their duty of care. Giles JA stated that when determining whether there has been a breach of duty of care one must consider s 5B of the Civil Liability Act (the CLA).

Giles JA found that in determining breach by reference to s 5B of the CLA, there was a risk of injury to those working in the shearing shed which was both foreseeable and not insignificant. He found that the application of a non-slip strip on the board, whilst not being required by any Australian Standard, would have reduced the risk of injury.

In respect of the apportionment of liability between the Hills and the Alchins, Giles JA noted that the trial Judge did not indicate how he had weighed up the respective liabilities of each in determining apportionment. The Hills submitted that the Alchins should have been found at least 50% responsible for Richards' injury having regard to: the non-delegable duty of care owed by the Alchins; the fact that the Alchins were familiar with the shearing shed; Mr Alchin was present in the shed at the time Richards was injured; the Alchins were in a position to control the speed at which Richards worked; and the likelihood the Hills would have applied a non-slip strip to the board if the Alchins had made such a request. Giles JA was guided by the well-established principle enunciated in Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Limited 3 in relation to determining apportionment where it was stated that:

"A finding on a question of apportionment is a finding upon a 'question, not of principle or of positive findings of fact or law, but of proportion, of balance and relative emphasis, and of weighing different considerations. It involves an individual choice or discretion, as to which there may well be differences of opinion by different minds': British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197 at 201. Such a finding, if made by a judge, is not lightly reviewed."

Giles JA found that there had been an error on the part of the trial Judge and determined that the apportionment between the Hills and the Alchins should be assessed on a 50/50 basis. Accordingly, Richards' damages were reduced to $346,881.


The case demonstrates that even where a plaintiff's credit and evidence are found to be unsatisfactory, objective factors will be considered in determining both liability and damages. While the outcome in this case goes against the trend of appellate decisions in other cases involving falls on stairs, the decision should be treated with caution as the conditions in a shearing shed cannot be equated with stairs in a domestic or commercial situation for normal pedestrian use for which the relevant Australian Standards were designed. The case also demonstrates that compliance with relevant Australian Standards alone is not sufficient to avoid a finding that a party has breached its duty of care to an entrant on their premises.

The Court of Appeal has emphasised that when assessing the respective liabilities of parties, consideration of proportion, balance and relative emphasis is necessary. The case serves as yet another reminder that when determining whether there has been a breach of duty of care one must revert to s 5B of the CLA and not common law principles. Where a plaintiff calls an expert to give evidence, the failure of the defendant to call evidence in reply can be fraught with danger as demonstrated by this case.


1 Giles JA, Campbell JA and Handley AJA
2 (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 47
3(1985) 59 ALR 529

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.