ACQ Pty Ltd v Cook

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by ACQ Pty Limited and Aircair Moree Pty Limited against a decision concerning liability for injuries sustained by Mr Cook. Mr Cook, an electrical linesman, was dispatched to repair a damaged conductor in a cotton field after a crop-dusting aircraft collided with it. While working near the damaged conductor, Mr Cook suffered an injury from an electric arc. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Cook's injury was covered by section 10(1) of the *Damage by Aircraft Act 1999* (Cth), which imposes strict liability for damage caused by aircraft.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of section 10(1)(d) of the *Damage by Aircraft Act 1999* (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether Mr Cook's injury, which occurred after a series of events following the aircraft's impact with the conductor, constituted damage "caused by ... something that is a result of an impact" with an aircraft in flight. The appellants argued for a narrow construction, contending that the injury must be directly and immediately caused by a singular event stemming from the impact, rather than a narrative of intermediate events.

The Court reasoned that the appellants' submission for a narrow interpretation of "caused by" was not supported by the legislative text or the concession they made regarding a fire fighter injured by a fire caused by an aircraft crash. The Court found no material difference between the role of a fire fighter responding to a peril and the role of Mr Cook, a linesman, who was also responding to and working to abate a peril posed by the damaged conductor. The Court rejected the distinction drawn by the appellants between a rescuer and a person attending to rectify a dangerous situation, finding that the damaged conductor did indeed present a peril. Consequently, the Court held that Mr Cook's injury was a result of something that stemmed from the aircraft's impact.

The appeals were dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.