CFMEU v State of Qld and Anglo Coal - [2005] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CFMEU v State of Qld and Anglo Coal [2005] QCA 127

PARTIES:

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION
(applicant/respondent)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(first respondent)
ANGLO COAL (GRASSTREE MANAGEMENT) PTY LTD ACN 078 099 313
(second respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6191 of 2004
SC No 9823 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Fryberg and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal should be dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LAW – Statutory regulation of conduct of mining operations – Regulation as to safety of mines and machinery – In general and definitions – Construction of ‘reasonably foreseeable event’

Coal Mining Health and Safety Regulation 2001 (Qld), s 148, s 296, s 296(1)

Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, cited
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, referred to

COUNSEL:

H B Fraser QC, with P P McQuade for the appellant
M D Hinson SC, with D R Kent for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Blake Dawson Waldron for the appellant
Hall Payne Lawyers for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Fryberg J for dismissing this appeal.

FRYBERG J: Grasstree is a new underground coal mine near Middlemount in central Queensland's Bowen basin. It is operated on a day-to-day basis by the appellant (“Anglo”).[1] Many of Anglo's employees at the mine are members of the respondent (“the CFMEU”). Development of the mine began in 2001. A permanent workforce began underground development operations in October 2003. Full production is expected to begin in 2006; however about 10 per cent of the extractable reserves of coal will by then have been produced through the development process. That process involves sinking vertical shafts and driving a number of more or less horizontal underground roadways around and between the shafts. It involves preparation of the underground area for longwall mining. The underground section of the mine was described by the trial judge in the following terms:

“It presently comprises some five kilometres of underground roadway which is connected to the surface by two vertical shafts. One shaft, described as the intake shaft, delivers fresh air from the surface to the mine. The other, described as the exhaust shaft, is fitted with exhaust fans drawing air from the mine. In this way air is drawn into the intake shaft, along the underground roadways and up through the exhaust shaft. Persons enter and leave the roadways usually through the intake shaft. But the exhaust shaft has a facility for transporting persons in the event of an emergency. There is a conveyance which can take up to ten people at a time and a round trip for that facility takes no longer than five minutes. The intake shaft is 6.1 metres…

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.

Continue reading CFMEU v State of Qld and Anglo Coal

Details

AGLC: CFMEU v State of Qld and Anglo Coal [2005] QCA 127
Case: [2005] QCA 127
Decision Date: 27 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and the State of Queensland and Anglo Coal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the safety of mining operations and the obligations of employers under the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999. The CFMEU argued that the employer failed to ensure the safety of employees by not providing adequate protection against a reasonably foreseeable event, which resulted in an accident causing injury to a worker. The primary issue before the court was the proper construction of the term "reasonably foreseeable event" within the context of mining operations.

The court examined whether the event in question was within the scope of a reasonably foreseeable event, as defined by the statute. It considered whether the event was something that a reasonable person in the position of the employer could have anticipated and taken steps to prevent. The court also looked at whether the employer had discharged its duty to provide a safe working environment and took into account the specific circumstances of the mining operation and the nature of the event that caused the injury. The court held that the term "reasonably foreseeable event" should be interpreted in light of the particular risks inherent in mining operations, and that the employer's duty was to take reasonable steps to protect against such risks.

After considering the arguments and the applicable statutory provisions, the court found that the employer had fulfilled its obligations under the act. It concluded that the event in question was not one that could be reasonably foreseen and that the employer had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the employees. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal should be dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	CFMEU v State of Qld and Anglo Coal [2005] QCA 127
PARTIES:	CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION (applicant/respondent) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (first respondent) ANGLO COAL (GRASSTREE MANAGEMENT) PTY LTD ACN 078 099 313 (second respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6191 of 2004 SC No 9823 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 November 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Fryberg and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal should be dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LAW – Statutory regulation of conduct of mining operations – Regulation as to safety of mines and machinery – In general and definitions – Construction of ‘reasonably foreseeable event’ Coal Mining Health and Safety Regulation 2001 (Qld), s 148, s 296, s 296(1) Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317, cited Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, referred to
COUNSEL:	H B Fraser QC, with P P McQuade for the appellant M D Hinson SC, with D R Kent for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Blake Dawson Waldron for the appellant Hall Payne Lawyers for the respondent