The High Court has rejected a special leave application from a cleaner against a decision which had held that her employer did not negligently expose her to the liquid chemical Didecyldimethylammonium Chloride (D4) in the course of her employment.
This case shows that if a PCBU has robust health and safety practices regarding the storage and use of chemicals in the workplace, they may be successful in defending a claim brought against them.
Justices Gordon and Steward concluded it ‘would be futile to grant an extension of time as there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision’.
The cleaner had alleged that exposure to D4 had caused a chemical hypersensitivity and other conditions which rendered her unable to work. The District Court had found there was no breach of duty, as the employer took steps to make sure the worker was not exposed to D4.
In this case, the employer/PCBU was ultimately successful in showing they had not breached their duty of care as they had a comprehensive training system as they:
As to injury, the District Court did not accept that the worker suffered from the symptom she alleged. There was no evidence that the diluted D4 with its dispensing system posed a risk to employees. The Queensland Court of Appeal had upheld the District Court decision. It concluded that even if wrong in finding there was no breach of duty by the employer, the cleaner would have been unsuccessful in establishing causation. The High Court dismissed her special leave application.
For any PCBU’s who would like more information on managing the risks of hazardous chemicals in the workplace, refer to the SafeWorkSA Code of Practice.
