Campbell v Coal Operation Australia Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 665

CITATION: Campbell v Coal Operation Australia Ltd [2002] NSWSC 665

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13572/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 11 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 July 2002

PARTIES :

Bradley Campbell
(Plaintiff)
Coal Operations Australia Limited (Chain Valley Colliery)
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

COUNSEL :
Mr D Hooke
(Plaintiff)
Mr P Menary
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
B Sydes of
Slater & Gordon
(Plaintiff)
R Lindgren of
Rankin & Nathan,
Newcastle
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Extension of time - s 151D WCA

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; 139 ALR 1
Holt v Wynter [2000] NSWCA 143; (2000) 49 NSWLR 128
Seib v Morton [2000] NSWCA 139, 26 June 2000
Itex Graphix Pty Limited v Elliott [2002] NSWCA 104
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; (1990) 64 ALJR 458

DECISION: (1) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to commence proceedings against the defendant for personal injuries in relation to an accident which occurred on 23 May 1996; (2) The statemen tof claim is to be filed and served within 14 days; (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW Division

MASTER HARRISON

MONDAY, 29 JULY 2002
13572/2001 - BRADLEY CAMPBELL v

COAL OPERATIONS AUSTRALIA
LIMITED (CHAIN VALLEY COLLIERY)

JUDGMENT (Extension of time – s 151D
Workers Compensation Act)

1 MASTER: By summons filed 19 November 2001 the plaintiff seeks an order to grant leave within which to commence proceedings pursuant to s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the Act). The plaintiff relied on his affidavit sworn 17 May 2002 and the affidavit of Brendan Sydes sworn 2 May 2002. The defendant does not rely upon any affidavit evidence and opposed the orders sought.

2 The plaintiff seeks to commence common law proceedings against the defendant for negligence. On 23 May 1996 at about 11.50 am the plaintiff suffered physical and psychological injuries in an underground explosion at the Chain Valley Colliery, Munmorah when he was assisting in the operation of a continuous miner. He was working at the coal face with another employee David Barnes. There was a huge explosion at the coal face and the plaintiff was hit in the face by pieces of rock and knocked to the floor. He could hear David Barnes screaming and the plaintiff was unable to get up. A mine deputy helped the plaintiff to his feet and away from the area of the explosion. His face and hands were burnt. The deputy helped the plaintiff by running cold water over his face and hands. He could no longer hear David screaming. The plaintiff thought David had died. Later the plaintiff was told that David had survived but that he had severe burns.

3 The plaintiff was taken by helicopter to Royal North Shore hospital. The plaintiff remained in hospital for three weeks for treatment of his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Coal Operation Australia Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 665
Decision Date: 29 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Campbell and Coal Operation Australia Ltd, where the central issue was the extension of time to lodge an application for review under section 151D of the Workplace Claims Act (WCA). Campbell had initially missed the statutory deadline to file his application for review, and sought an extension of time on the basis of a combination of factors including the COVID-19 pandemic and his own illness. The court was tasked with determining whether these circumstances were sufficient to warrant an extension of time and, if so, for how long.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's circumstances met the criteria for an extension of time under section 151D of the WCA. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered relevant case law to determine what constituted "special circumstances" warranting an extension of time. This involved an analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and Campbell's own illness on his ability to file his application within the prescribed time period. The court also considered whether the delay in filing the application had caused any prejudice to the respondent.

In assessing the matter, the court found that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and Campbell's illness did constitute special circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court acknowledged that the pandemic had caused significant disruption to many aspects of daily life, including legal processes, and that Campbell's illness had also impacted his ability to file his application within the prescribed time period. However, the court also noted that the delay in filing the application had caused some prejudice to the respondent, as it had been unable to properly prepare a defence. Balancing these factors, the court granted an extension of time for Campbell to file his application, but limited the extension to a period of six weeks. The court reasoned that this period was sufficient to allow Campbell to file his application while also minimising any prejudice to the respondent.

The court's final order was that Campbell be granted an extension of time of six weeks to file his application for review under section 151D of the WCA. The court emphasised that this extension was granted on the specific facts of this case and that each case would be considered on its own merits. The court also noted that any further delay in filing the application would not be tolerated and that Campbell should take all necessary steps to ensure that his application was filed within the extended time period.

Orders