Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd

Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 3 April 1996 31 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH AND GUMMOW JJ

Matter No S62 of 1995

(1996) 186 CLR 1

3 April 1996

Harris v Commercial Minerals Limited and Ors Harris v Auqal Pty Limited and Ors Limitation of actions—Personal injury—Extension of limitation period—Latent injury—Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 60G, 60I. Limitation of actions—Personal injury—Extension of limitation period—"unaware of nature or extent of personal injury"—Subjective awareness—Reasonable foreseeability irrelevant—Time at which awareness determined—Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 60I(1). Damages—Personal injury—Deduction of future statutory benefits—Financial source—Nature of benefit—Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 (NSW) ss 6, 8. Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 60G(2), 60I(1). Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 (NSW) ss 6, 8.

Headnote

Hearing

CANBERRA, 17 August 1995
#DATE 3:4:1996, SYDNEY

Matter No S62 of 1995
Counsel for the Appellant D F Jackson QC with
A J Katzmann

Solicitors for the Appellant Turner Freeman

Counsel for the First Respondent B M Toomey QC with
D R Russell

Solicitors for the First Respondent A O Ellison and Co

Counsel for the Third Respondent J D Hislop QC with
G J Parker

Solicitors for the Third Respondent P V McCulloch and Buggy

Matter No S63 of 1995
Counsel for the Appellant D F Jackson QC with
A J Katzmann

Solicitors for the Appellant Turner Freeman

Counsel for the First Respondent J D Hislop QC with
G J Parker

Solicitors for the First Respondent P V McCulloch and Buggy

Counsel for the Second Respondent B M Toomey QC with
D R Russell

Solicitors for the Second Respondent A O Ellison and Co

Orders

1. Appeals allowed.
2. Set aside the orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

3. In lieu of the said orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, order that:
(a) the appeals to that Court against the assessment of damages by the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales be allowed;
(b) otherwise, the appeals to that Court by the respondents be dismissed;
(c) the matter be remitted to the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales to assess the damages to be awarded against the second and third defendants before that Tribunal on the basis of the findings of and the evidence before Johns CCJ.
4. The respondents pay the costs of the appellant in the New South Wales Court of Appeal and in this Court.

Decision

DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH AND GUMMOW JJ. Pursuant to the grant of special leave, Donna Therese Harris, as administratrix ad litem ("the administratrix"), appeals against an order of the New South Wales Court of Appeal setting aside a judgment for damages and an order extending the time for commencing the action for damages. The judgment and the order extending time were made by the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales in favour of Denis Paul Hollins ("the worker") who died before the hearing of this appeal.

2. The questions in the appeal are:
(1) whether the worker was entitled under subdiv 3 of Div 3

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 Harris v Commercial Minerals 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

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: [1996] HCA 49
Decision Date: 3 April 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd*. The case concerned a claim for damages for personal injury arising from the plaintiff's exposure to silica dust during his employment with the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment, leading to the development of silicosis.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the operation of s 139 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) (the Act). Section 139 of the Act provides that a worker who has received or is entitled to receive weekly payments under the Act is not entitled to bring proceedings for damages against their employer for an injury sustained in the course of employment. The court was required to determine the scope and effect of this statutory bar, particularly in circumstances where the worker had not yet commenced receiving weekly payments but was entitled to do so.

The High Court held that the plain wording of s 139(1) of the Act indicated that the entitlement to receive weekly payments, rather than the actual receipt of such payments, was the trigger for the statutory bar. The majority reasoned that the purpose of the provision was to provide a statutory scheme of compensation and to prevent double recovery. Therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement to weekly payments under the Act meant that he was precluded from pursuing a common law claim for damages against his employer. The court affirmed the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Orders