Hann v Clarence Colliery - [2012] NSWSC 475

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: HANN v CLARENCE COLLIERY [2012] NSWSC 475
Hearing dates: 25-29 July, 4-5 August 2011
Decision date: 11 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: RS HULME J
Decision:
Verdict and judgment for the Defendant

Catchwords: Negligence - air-lock in coal mine
Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Russell Noel HANN (Plaintiff)
Clarence Colliery (Defendant)
Representation: P: DGT Nock SC/M Vesper
D: M Joseph SC/D Stanton
P: Barry F Cosier & Associates
D: Sparke Helmore

File Number(s): 2010/60690

Judgment

RS HULME J: On 16 June 2007, the Plaintiff in these proceedings was injured in the course of his employment in a coalmine when his wrist became jammed between two doors of an airlock in one of the shafts.

The airlock was formed by placing, some metres apart, two pairs of doors and their frame across the shaft and sealing by bricks or some other building materials between the frame and the boundaries of the shaft. The purpose of the airlock was to minimise the passage of air through the shaft, a pair of doors when shut being roughly airtight. One pair of doors - the "in-bye doors" - opened into the airlock. The other pair - the "out-bye doors" - opened in the same direction, ie, out of the airlock. Differences in air pressure meant that there was a tendency for air to flow from upstream of the out-bye doors through the airlock or any gaps in the sealing and thence downstream of the in-bye doors. At the time of the Plaintiff's injury, he and a co-worker driving a front-end loader were attempting to negotiate the airlock, proceeding upstream in the air-flow. The normal method whereby this would be done would be to open the in-bye doors, enter the airlock, close the in-bye doors, open the out-bye doors, leave the airlock, and then close the out-bye doors.

The evidence indicates that each of the four doors is 2 metres wide. There is some conflict in the evidence as to the length and width of the airlock. I shall refer below to this evidence but it appears that the length of the airlock was at least 8.9 metres and its width something over 4 metres. The evidence as to the width of the doors and of the returns or walls between the door frame and the sides of the shaft so indicates.

The front-end loader referred to was by brand an "Eimco" and was so referred to generally in the evidence. Because the size of the Eimco relative to the size of the airlock undoubtedly contributed to the Plaintiff being injured, I should refer to it. A plan included in the report of Professor Thomas indicates the Eimco in standard configuration was 8.4 metres long although that length could be reduced somewhat by movement of the bucket. The machine width varied between 1830 mm and 1990 mm and the bucket was 2100 mm wide. The evidence indicated that probably a larger…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hann v Clarence Colliery 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWSC 475
Decision Date: 11 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the matter of Hann v Clarence Colliery was heard. The plaintiff, Hann, a miner employed by the defendant company, sought compensation for injuries sustained due to an air-lock incident in the coal mine. The incident occurred when an air-lock malfunctioned, trapping Hann and leading to injuries. Hann alleged that the company was negligent in failing to maintain the air-lock equipment adequately.

The primary legal issue was whether Clarence Colliery breached its duty of care towards Hann by failing to maintain the air-lock equipment properly, thereby causing his injuries. The court needed to determine if the company's failure to ensure the safety of the equipment constituted negligence. The case hinged on whether the company could have reasonably anticipated the risk of the air-lock malfunction and the steps it should have taken to prevent such an occurrence.

The court found that Clarence Colliery did indeed have a duty of care towards its employees to maintain safe working conditions. The company's failure to properly inspect and maintain the air-lock equipment amounted to a breach of this duty. The court ruled that the company should have been aware of the potential risks associated with the air-lock malfunction and could have taken reasonable steps to mitigate these risks. The negligence of Clarence Colliery in this regard directly led to Hann's injuries. Consequently, the court awarded damages to Hann, recognising the company's liability for the injuries sustained due to the air-lock incident.

Orders