Celik v Commonwealth of Austrlia & Delaware North (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 27 (27 April 2002)

Last Updated: 27 November 2002

Hakan Celik v Commonwealth of Australia & Delaware North (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 27 (12 April 2002)

CATCHWORDS

INDEMNITY CLAIM - contractual obligation for contractor to insure owner of premises - employee of contractor injured as a result of negligence of owner of premises - whether contractor required to indemnify owner.

CONTRACT - insurance clause - whether policy meets contractual requirements.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 79, 80

Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192

Canberra Formwork Pty Ltd v Civil and Civic Ltd (1982) 41 ACTR 1

Cervellone v Besselink Bros Pty Ltd (1984) 55 ACTR 1

Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 82; (1986) 161 CLR 500

Lyons v Fondi Investments Pty Ltd [1998] ACTSC 76, (1999) 10 ANZ Insurance Cases ¶61-421

Steele v Twin City Rigging Pty Ltd (1992) 114 FLR 99

No. SC 849 of 1996

Coram: Master T. Connolly

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 12 April 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SC 849 of 1996

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: HAKAN CELIK

Plaintiff

AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Defendant

AND: DELAWARE NORTH (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

Second Defendant

ORDER

Coram: Master T. Connolly

Date: 12 April 2002

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The notice claiming contribution and indemnity by the First Defendant addressed to the Second Defendant dated 13 May 1999 be dismissed

2. The parties be heard as to costs

1. This matter involves a determination of the status of two defendants arising from an employment personal injuries claim. The plaintiff was a kitchen worker at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Fairburn in the Australian Capital Territory. He was injured when a hatchway in the kitchen ceiling fell and struck him on the head. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants was settled in the sum of $161,238.80 and costs. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on 21 February 2002. The remaining issue between the parties was the claim by the first defendant claiming indemnity from the second defendant of May 1999