Endeavour Energy v Precision Helicopters Pty Ltd

Endeavour Energy Pty Ltd and Precision Helicopters Pty Ltd were parties to a dispute arising from an aviation accident during an aerial inspection of power lines. Endeavour Energy had contracted Precision Helicopters to provide a helicopter and pilot for this task. During the inspection, the helicopter struck an unmarked telecommunication wire, resulting in damage to the helicopter and catastrophic injuries to an Endeavour Energy employee on board. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

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.