Legal Research
Cases
Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2)

Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2)

Case [2023] NSWCA 127 8 June 2023

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 127
Hearing dates: 17 May 2023
Decision date: 08 June 2023
Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [2]; Adamson JA at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Allow the appeal.
(2)   Set aside the judgment of Campbell J ordered on 30 June 2022 and, in its place, order judgment for the defendant.
(3)   Make no order as to the costs of the second respondent.
(4)   Otherwise reserve the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the primary judge.
(5)   Grant leave to the appellant to make an application with respect to costs, such application to be made in writing by notice of motion, together with any affidavit in support and submissions to be relied upon within 14 days of the date of these orders, following which directions will be made as to any responses.

Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — single motor vehicle accident — employee driving home from successive 12 hour shifts at coal mine — employee sued employer for damages for negligence — scope of duty — whether duty extends to travelling home from workplace — whether duty owed by employer to insist on employee providing travel management plan for journey home
NEGLIGENCE — Causation — whether accident caused by work-induced fatigue — whether rest break of 20 to 30 minutes would have eliminated risk of injury — whether plan would have been followed by employee

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B(1)(f), 5D(3)(b)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 282, Schedule 6, Part 18, Clause 3, Division 2, Division 3, Part 5
Workers Compensation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372; [1964] HCA 26
Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307
Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v FerrcomPty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389
Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca [2023] NSWCA 83
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59
Gates v The City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 3
Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited [2016] QSC 304; (2016) 262 IR 381
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1
Sydney County Council v Furner (1991) 7 NSWCCR 210

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Troy Anthony Matinca (First Respondent)
Burke & Mead Lawyers Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M T McCulloch SC / D Stanton (Appellant)
No appearance (First Respondent)
A J Stone SC / J L Magee (Second Respondent)
Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Appellant)
Not applicable (First Respondent)
Burke & Mead Lawyers (Second Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/199614

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 Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 127
Case: [2023] NSWCA 127
Decision Date: 08 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a claim brought by an employee, Mr Matinca, against his employer, Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd, following a single motor vehicle accident. Mr Matinca alleged that his employer was negligent in failing to prevent him from driving home from work while fatigued after completing successive 12-hour shifts at a coal mine. The core of the dispute concerned the scope of an employer's duty of care, specifically whether it extended to ensuring an employee's safe travel home from the workplace, and whether the employer should have insisted on the employee providing a travel management plan for that journey.

The legal issues before the court were whether Coalroc Contractors owed Mr Matinca a duty of care to ensure his safe travel home, and if so, whether the breach of that duty caused the accident. This involved determining whether the employer's duty extended to proactively managing the risks associated with an employee's commute home, particularly in circumstances of work-induced fatigue. The court also had to consider the issue of causation, specifically whether the accident was a result of fatigue and whether the implementation of a travel management plan would have realistically prevented the injury.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's judgment in favour of Mr Matinca and entering judgment for the defendant, Coalroc Contractors. The court found that the employer's duty of care did not extend to ensuring the employee's safe journey home from the workplace. The court reasoned that while employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees at work, this duty does not ordinarily encompass the employee's commute, which is generally considered to be outside the employer's control and responsibility. The court also noted that even if such a duty were found to exist, there was insufficient evidence to establish that a travel management plan would have been implemented or followed by the employee, and therefore causation was not proven.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Allow the appeal.

(2) Set aside the judgment of Campbell J ordered on 30 June 2022 and, in its place, order judgment for the defendant.

(3) Make no order as to the costs of the second respondent.

(4) Otherwise reserve the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the primary judge.

(5) Grant leave to the appellant to make an application with respect to costs, such application to be made in writing by notice of motion, together with any affidavit in support and submissions to be relied upon within 14 days of the date of these orders, following which directions will be made as to any responses.

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.

Actions

Citations

Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 127

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca [2023] NSWCA 83
Citation 1 (Para 11)

…Mead was joined as a second respondent to the appeal on condition that it bear its own costs of the appeal: Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca [2023] NSWCA 83. Mr Stone SC appeared with Ms Magee for Burke & Mead on the appeal. Mr McCulloch SC appeared with Mr Stanton for the appellant.…
Matinca v Coalroc (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 844
Citation 2

…r(s): 2022/199614 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: Matinca v Coalroc (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 844 Date of Decision: 30 June 2022 Before: Campbell J File Number(s): 2019/111036…
Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited [2016] QSC 304
Citation 3 (Para 63)

…which required him to travel a significant distance for the purposes of his employment. He relied on Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited [2016] QSC 304; (2016) 262 IR 381 ( Kerle ), in which McMeekin J distinguished ACI Metal by reference to its particular facts.…
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35
Citation 4 (Para 68)

…obligations imposed under safety regulations do not give rise to a corresponding duty of care ( Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35 at [49] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Bell JJ), contractual obligations, such as those between the appellant and Ulan Coal Mines Limited, whi…
Sutherland Shire Council v Becker [2006] NSWCA 344
Citation 5 (Para 57)

…In Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307 ( Bendix Mintex ), Mason P confirmed at 316G that “[t]he law does not equate the situation where the defendant had materially increased the risk of injury with one where he had materially contributed to the injury” (emphasis added). His Honour referred to various c…
Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18
Citation 6 (Para 75)

…ignificant subjective matters which tended against his either proposing or complying with such a plan: cf. Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18 at [17] (Gleeson CJ). First, he was positively indignant at the suggestions put to him in cross-examination that he either return to Mudgee for the nig…
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59
Citation 7 (Para 64)

…rodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 24 (Mason J); [1986] HCA 1 and Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59 at [44]-[46] (Gaudron J); [104]-[108] (McHugh J, Gleeson CJ agreeing); [233] (Kirby J). In the present case, the duty which the primary judge found d…
Ferrcom Pty Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd [1993] HCA 5
Citation 8 (Para 76)

…that the answer would not have assisted Mr Matinca’s case were not drawn (see Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 at 418-19), there is still a dearth of evidence (whether direct or circumstantial) to prove the counterfactual which the primary judge found and weighty ci…
Sydney County Council v Furner [1991] NSWCA 263
Citation 9 (Para 58)

…Also in Bendix Mintex , Beazley JA said, referring to Sydney County Council v Furner (1991) 7 NSWCCR 210 at 214 (Hope JA), that the onus of proof of causation is “not discharged by establishing that a particular matter cannot be excluded as a cause of the injury.”…
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3
Citation 10 (Para 72)

…ched the duty alleged to have been owed: Gates v The City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1 at 12 (Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ); [1986] HCA 3. To address these grounds, it is necessary to assume, contrary to the views I have expressed above, that the appellant owed a duty to insist that Mr…
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1
Citation 11 (Para 64)

…ur. Control is relevant to the existence and scope of a duty of care: see Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 at 24 (Mason J); [1986] HCA 1 and Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59 at [44]-[46] (Gaudron J); [104]-[108] (McHugh J, Gleeson CJ agr…
ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik [1964] HCA 26
Citation 12

…chedule 6, Part 18, Clause 3, Division 2, Division 3, Part 5 Workers Compensation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) Cases Cited: ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372; [1964] HCA 26 Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Coalroc…

Legislation Cited

Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS) 3B(1)(f), 5D(3)(b)
3 mentions (from Para 10)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) 282
2 mentions (from Para 10)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 127
Hearing dates:	17 May 2023
Decision date:	08 June 2023
Before:	Meagher JA at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [2]; Adamson JA at [3]
Decision:	(1) Allow the appeal. (2) Set aside the judgment of Campbell J ordered on 30 June 2022 and, in its place, order judgment for the defendant. (3) Make no order as to the costs of the second respondent. (4) Otherwise reserve the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the primary judge. (5) Grant leave to the appellant to make an application with respect to costs, such application to be made in writing by notice of motion, together with any affidavit in support and submissions to be relied upon within 14 days of the date of these orders, following which directions will be made as to any responses.
Catchwords:	NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — single motor vehicle accident — employee driving home from successive 12 hour shifts at coal mine — employee sued employer for damages for negligence — scope of duty — whether duty extends to travelling home from workplace — whether duty owed by employer to insist on employee providing travel management plan for journey home NEGLIGENCE — Causation — whether accident caused by work-induced fatigue — whether rest break of 20 to 30 minutes would have eliminated risk of injury — whether plan would have been followed by employee
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B(1)(f), 5D(3)(b) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 282, Schedule 6, Part 18, Clause 3, Division 2, Division 3, Part 5 Workers Compensation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372; [1964] HCA 26 Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR 307 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v FerrcomPty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd v Matinca [2023] NSWCA 83 Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59 Gates v The City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 3 Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Limited [2016] QSC 304; (2016) 262 IR 381 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1 Sydney County Council v Furner (1991) 7 NSWCCR 210
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd (Appellant) Troy Anthony Matinca (First Respondent) Burke & Mead Lawyers Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M T McCulloch SC / D Stanton (Appellant) No appearance (First Respondent) A J Stone SC / J L Magee (Second Respondent) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Appellant) Not applicable (First Respondent) Burke & Mead Lawyers (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/199614