|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Ltd |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWCA 169 |
Hearing Date(s): | 8, 9 and 10 December 2014 |
Decision Date: | 22 June 2015 |
Before: | Basten JA at [1]; |
Decision: | The Court directs that, absent agreement reached within 3 weeks of the delivery of these reasons, as to (i) apportionment, (ii) calculation of amounts payable and (iii) costs, the parties are to file and serve: |
Catchwords: | AVIATION – carriage by air – carrier’s liability – limitation under Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 31 – electricity supply company contracted for supply of helicopter and pilot to undertake aerial inspection power lines – whether carriage under Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) – whether employee of electricity supply company on board helicopter was a “passenger” – whether employee’s role to provide information to pilot about route and hazards made him a crew member – Fellowes (or Herd) v Clyde Helicopters Ltd [1997] AC 534 applied |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters 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
- [2015] NSWCA 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the injured Endeavour Energy employee was a "passenger" for the purposes of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967* (NSW), or if their role in providing information about the route and hazards classified them as a crew member. The court also considered whether Precision Helicopters had breached its contractual obligations by failing to exercise reasonable care and comply with applicable laws and standards. Further issues involved whether Endeavour Energy had a duty to mark all hazards, whether it should have made inquiries of the telecommunication company, and the interpretation of contractual indemnity clauses. Additionally, the court examined whether Precision Helicopters owed a general law duty to require the wearing of helmets, and whether Endeavour Energy, as an employer, had a duty to mandate helmet use. The potential negligence of the telecommunication company in relation to the unmarked wire and the issue of causation for the injuries sustained were also central to the proceedings.
The court applied principles of contract law and negligence. Regarding the contractual obligations, the court assessed whether the pilot's performance met the standard of reasonable care and compliance with laws and standards. The court considered the scope of Endeavour Energy's duty to mark hazards and its potential failure to make necessary inquiries. The interpretation of indemnity clauses was crucial in determining the apportionment of liability for the carrier's losses. In negligence, the court examined the existence and scope of duties of care owed by Precision Helicopters and Endeavour Energy, particularly concerning the requirement for helmet use in the absence of specific statutory or regulatory mandates. The court also considered the telecommunication company's duty of care, assessing whether it ought to have been aware of the aerial inspections and taken steps to mitigate the risk posed by its wire. Causation was analysed under section 5D(1)(b) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), considering whether the accident was a materialised risk. The court also addressed the application of the *Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1967* (NSW) and the employer's indemnity under section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).
The court directed that, unless the parties reached an agreement within three weeks regarding apportionment, the calculation of amounts payable, and costs, they were to file and serve submissions on the remaining unresolved issues within four weeks, with replies to follow within a further two weeks.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court directs that, absent agreement reached within 3 weeks of the delivery of these reasons, as to (i) apportionment, (ii) calculation of amounts payable and (iii) costs, the parties are to file and serve:
(a)within 4 weeks, their respective submissions dealing with such of the issues identified above as remain unresolved, such submissions not to exceed seven pages; and
(b)within a further 2 weeks, any submission, not to exceed four pages, in reply.
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.