Kelsall v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWDDT 2


Dust Diseases Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kelsall v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWDDT 2
Hearing dates: 23 May 2025
Date of orders: 3 June 2025
Decision date: 03 June 2025
Before: Judge Russell SC
Decision:

See pars [33] and [66] below

Catchwords:

DUST DISEASES – notice of motion for dismissal – amended pleadings went beyond the bounds of order for amendment – order must be understood in the context in which it was made – failure to comply with a requirement of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – an irregularity – proceedings not invalidated

DUST DISEASES – notice of motion for discovery – only documents relating to a matter in issue are discoverable – examination of the pleadings to ascertain matters in issue – interests of justice – scope of discovery can be limited – cost and delay is to be considered – no evidence as to cost concerning discovery – documents relate to matters in issue

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 58, 61, 63, 64

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28, 21.1, 21.2, 21.4. 21.8, 35.3

Dust Diseases Tribunal Rules 2019 (NSW), r 4

Cases Cited:

Alexander v Fitzpatrick [1981] Qd R 359

Birmingham v London [1913] 3 KB 850

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Goater [2016] NWSC 710 

Hunter New England Local Health District v Munters Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 788

Mulley v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341

Palavi v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 264

Percy v General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 289

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: David James Kelsall (Plaintiff)
Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Daracon Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Tarrawonga Coal Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Tzouganatos and V Boutas (Plaintiff)
J Sharpe (First Defendant)
T Rowles (Second Defendant – in the interests of Coal Mines Insurance Ltd for liability as employer in a NSW coal mine)
J Tryon (Second Defendant – in the interests of Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer for liability as a non-coal mine employer)
D Andersen solicitor (Second Defendant – for liability other than as an employer)
K McMeniman solicitor (Third Defendant)

Solicitors:
Vbr Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Meridian Lawyers (First Defendant)
Sparke Helmore (Second Defendant – in the interests of Coal Mines Insurance Ltd for liability as employer in a NSW coal mine)
Rankin Ellison (Second Defendant – in the interests of Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer for liability as a non-coal mine employer)
HWL Ebsworth (Second Defendant – for liability other than as an employer)
McCabes Lawyers (Third Defendant)
File Number(s): 2023/00451985

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This judgment concerns two Notices of Motion:

  1. A Notice of Motion filed on 6 May 2025 by the plaintiff Mr David Kelsall seeking verified discovery from all three defendants (the Discovery Motion).

  2. An Amended Notice of Motion filed on 20 May 2025 by Mr Andersen solicitor seeking orders that Mr Kelsall’s pleadings against his client be set aside or dismissed or struck out…

Continue reading Kelsall v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kelsall v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDDT 2
Case
[2025] NSWDDT 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kelsall v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd was a case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Mr. Kelsall, sought compensation for dust-related diseases allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence in a mining operation. The defendant, Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd, contested the claim. The court was required to consider the plaintiff's amended pleadings, which went beyond the bounds of the earlier order for amendment, and assess a notice of motion for discovery concerning documents related to the matter in issue.

The court determined that the plaintiff's amended pleadings exceeded the scope of the earlier order, but this did not invalidate the proceedings as it was not a fundamental irregularity. The court also assessed the scope of discoverable documents, ruling that only those relating to the matters in issue were discoverable. The court considered the interests of justice, the potential for cost and delay, and concluded that the plaintiff had not provided evidence of the cost concerning the discovery.

The court ordered that the amended pleadings would be allowed, despite exceeding the scope of the earlier order. Additionally, the scope of discovery was limited to documents relating to the matters in issue. The final orders are detailed in paragraphs [33] and [66] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [33] and [66] below

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.