Coomblas v Gee and Australian National Railways No. Scgrg-96-2202 Judgment No. S6894

The case of Coomblas v Gee and Australian National Railways was heard by the South Australian Supreme Court. The dispute involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 19, 1993, at the junction of Long Plains Road and Port Wakefield Road in Windsor. The plaintiff, who was a passenger in a van driven by Mr. Andrew Gee, an employee of the Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC), was injured in the accident. The other vehicle involved was a truck driven by Mr. Nicholas Coomblas, an employee of MacMahon Construction Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sued Mr. Coomblas, MacMahon, and the State of South Australia for damages arising from the accident. The defendants in turn sought contribution from the plaintiff and Mr. Gee, arguing that they were barred from doing so under section 44 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The Full Court had to determine whether the defendants were entitled to recover contribution from the plaintiff and Mr. Gee, and whether section 44 of the Compensation Act barred such claims.

The court held that section 44 of the Compensation Act barred claims for damages against the Commonwealth or its employees for injuries sustained by employees in the course of their employment. However, an action for contribution under section 25 of the Wrongs Act 1936 was not considered an action or proceeding for damages within the meaning of section 44 of the Compensation Act. Therefore, section 44 did not directly operate to bar or extinguish the claim for contribution. Nevertheless, the court found that it would not be just and equitable to require the defendants to pay contribution to the plaintiff when the primary claim was barred by section 44 of the Compensation Act. Consequently, the defendants' claims for contribution were not maintainable. The Full Court allowed the appeal but varied the answer to the preliminary point of law to reflect that the claims made by the appellant against the respondents on the third party notices were not maintainable.