Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: D’Herville v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1367 Hearing dates: 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; December 2019; 2 March 2020 Date of orders: 29 October 2021 Decision date: 29 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendant
(2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs
Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – work injury damages – coal-miner – where plaintiff received injury to right shoulder and neck while operating dump truck – whether bulldozer created hazard in the road – whether injury caused by ditch in road or rough surface – no liability
DAMAGES – assessment – statutory thresholds for workers compensation – question of later exacerbation of injury at work
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 44, 108
Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW)
Workers’ Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 35, 151B, 151G, 151H, 151I
Cases Cited: Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63
Bressington v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1947) 75 CLR 339; [1947] HCA 47
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Hellessey v Metlife Insurance Limited [2017] NSWSC 1284
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Kempsey District Hospital v Thackham (1995) 36 NSWLR 492
Najdovski v Crnojlovic [2008] NSWCA 175
Piening v Wanless (1968) 117 CLR 498; [1968] HCA 7
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121; [2000] HCA 18
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517; [2005] HCA 4
Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 127; [2004] NSWCA 174
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tanya Jane D’Herville (Plaintiff)
Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
P B Dooley SC with P O’Rourke (Plaintiff)
L King SC (Defendant)
Carroll & O’Dea (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/99029 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
The plaintiff, Ms D’Herville, claims damages from her employer, Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd (“Mt Arthur”), for personal injury received in the course of her employment on 28 March 2013.
-
Mt Arthur owns, occupies and operates the open-cut coal mine at Bayswater Colliery, Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley. Ms D’Herville was employed by the defendant as a haul truck operator, driving what I will refer to as an oversized, rigid body model 793D dump truck manufactured by Caterpillar. Ms D’Herville said the truck had a “capacity” of 500 tonnes. Mt Arthur’s internal plant number for the truck was 447. Her task was to operate the truck to carry overburden, which was being excavated to expose the coal seam, from the coalfield known as Roxburgh Pit to the Drayton Void Dump within the colliery. The internal roadways are constructed of compacted dirt, rocks and gravel. Ms D’Herville says her accident happened on the Snake Gully Haul Road which is in the pit area near where the excavators were operating.
-
It is Ms D’Herville’s case, contested by Mt Arthur, that she suffered injury when…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read D'Herville v Mt Arthur Coal Pty 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWSC 1367
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that there was no evidence that the respondent was negligent in creating the hazard, and that the injury was not caused by the alleged hazard but rather by the rough surface of the road. The court held that the respondent was not liable for the plaintiff's injury. The court also considered the issue of damages, noting that the statutory thresholds for workers compensation would apply. The court found that the plaintiff's injury had been exacerbated at work, but that this did not affect the respondent's liability for the initial injury.
The court ordered that the respondent was not liable for the plaintiff's injury and that the plaintiff take nothing by way of damages. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.