Davidovic v Apleona HSG Ltd & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff commenced employment with Company B at a store of Company C on 1 May 2019. On 14 May 2019, while performing duties involving moving pallet cages loaded with goods and removing packaging, the Plaintiff sustained a severe injury when her heel was pierced by a sharp object at the base of a trolley, resulting in a severed Achilles tendon which was repaired the following day at The Hospital.

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings against three defendants: Company A (supplier of the pallet cages), Company B (contracted for repairs to the pallet cages), and Company C (the store operator). The claim against Company A was struck out by consent on 9 May 2024, and the Plaintiff settled her claims with the remaining defendants. The dispute narrowed to an apportionment of liability between Company B and Company C regarding the cause of the injury.

Company C alleged that Company B left the relevant trolley in a dangerous state following repairs. The Court was tasked with determining:

1. The extent to which Company C's health and safety systems, including training and supervision of the Plaintiff, contributed to the accident.
2. Whether Company B carried out a repair on the specific trolley which caused the injury.
3. If such repair was carried out by Company B, the extent to which it caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's injury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. To what extent did Company C's health and safety systems, including training and supervision of the Plaintiff, cause or contribute to the accident?
2. Did Company B carry out repairs to the trolley alleged to have caused the injury, specifically on 7 May 2019?
3. If Company B repaired the trolley, to what extent did that repair cause or contribute to the Plaintiff's injury?

Arguments of the Parties

Company C's Arguments

• Company C contended that Company B was responsible for leaving the trolley in a dangerous state following repairs conducted on 7 May 2019.
• Company C relied on CCTV footage and photographs to suggest that the sharp edge causing the injury was created by Company B's repair work.
• Company C argued that the health and safety systems, including training and supervision, were factors but sought to attribute liability primarily to Company B’s repair failures.

Company B's Arguments

• Company B’s engineer testified that the repairs performed on 7 May 2019 did not include the trolley alleged to have caused the injury.
• Company B highlighted the absence of any process by Company C to track, tag, or secure trolleys, undermining the reliability of identifying the relevant trolley.
• Company B challenged the evidential value of the CCTV footage and photographs relied upon by Company C.

Additional Observations

• Independent engineers agreed that Company C fell below certain duties owed to the Plaintiff in training and supervision.
• Witnesses from Company C acknowledged limitations in their identification of the trolley and conceded that assumptions had been made without comprehensive tracking or photographic evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the evidence, including witness testimony, CCTV footage, repair worksheets, and inspection reports. It found no satisfactory evidence on the balance of probabilities that Company B’s engineer repaired the trolley which caused the Plaintiff's injury on 14 May 2019. The Court noted the lack of a system by Company C to track or secure trolleys, inconsistencies between key witness accounts, and the limited evidential value of the CCTV footage. Independent engineers’ evidence supported the conclusion that the attribution of liability to Company B was based on inference rather than concrete proof. Consequently, the Court dismissed Company C’s claim for contribution and indemnity against Company B.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision is DISMISSED with respect to Company C’s claim for contribution and indemnity against Company B.

This ruling directly affects the parties by absolving Company B from liability for the Plaintiff’s injury, leaving Company C responsible for its own liability. The opinion sets no new precedent and does not elaborate on broader legal implications beyond the immediate effect on the parties.