Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd  [2011] QSC 051

PARTIES:

Paul Ashley Koven

Plaintiff

v

Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 080 002 008)

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

SC 32 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2011 & 21 March 2011.

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $866,486.58

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES — Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort — Measure of damages — Personal injuries — General principles — Future Economic Loss – Future Paid Services - Where plaintiff suffered injury to left ankle where liability admitted — Where calculation of future loss of earnings affected by the vicissitudes of the mining industry – Prospective earnings as a Dragline Operator – Residual Earning Capacity -  Whether Plaintiff would have continued working as a dragline operator beyond age sixty – Whether certain services claimed for damages were paid or gratuitous.

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)

Workers Compensation and  Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Anodising & Aluminium Finishers v Coleman [1999] QCA 467; [2002] 1 Qd R 141

Bugge v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 227

Craddock v Anglo Coral (Moranbah North Management) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 133

CSR v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1

Duong v Versacold Logistics Ltd and Ors [2010] QSC 466

Foster & Anor v Cameron [2010] QSC 372; [2011] QCA 48

Friend v Rye [2000] QSC 502

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Incorporated & Shanahan [2003] QSC 263

Thomas v O’Shea (1989) ATR 80-251

Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd [2003] QSC 015

Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485

COUNSEL:

C Heyworth-Smith and B Hartigan for the Plaintiff

R Treston for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the Defendant

  1. McMEEKIN J:  Mr Paul Ashley Koven suffered an injury to his ankle on 13 November 2007 in the course of his employment with the defendant, Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd.

  1. Liability is admitted.  I am required to assess damages.  Some heads of loss are agreed but significant differences remain in relation to general damages, future economic loss and future paid care.

  1. The plaintiff was born on 15 January 1961.  He was therefore 46 years of age at the date of the accident.  He was aged 50 at the time of the trial.

The Injury and its Aftermath

  1. The plaintiff suffered an inversion injury to his left ankle. The orthopaedic evidence was that as a consequence the plaintiff had:

(a)       disruption of the anterior Talo-Fibula ligament and the lateral ligament to the left ankle (calcaneo fibula ligament);

(b)       a bony and articular cartilage injury to the medial aspect of the Talar Dome;

(c)       secondary instability of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Koven v Hail Creek Coal 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
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
[2011] QSC 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koven initiated legal proceedings against Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd, alleging personal injuries sustained due to an incident at work, where he suffered an injury to his left ankle. The defendant admitted liability, and the court's task was to determine the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The primary legal issues revolved around the calculation of future economic loss, specifically future earnings as a dragline operator, and the consideration of whether the plaintiff would have continued working beyond the age of sixty. Another significant issue was the determination of whether certain services claimed for damages were paid or gratuitous, impacting the assessment of the damages.

The court considered the plaintiff's residual earning capacity and the impact of the mining industry's vicissitudes on future earnings. It assessed the likelihood of the plaintiff continuing to work as a dragline operator beyond the age of sixty and factored this into the damages calculation. The court also examined the nature of the services claimed for damages, determining whether they were paid or gratuitous, which influenced the assessment of future economic loss.

In its judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages of $866,486.58. The court concluded that the plaintiff would have continued working as a dragline operator beyond the age of sixty and that certain services claimed for damages were paid. This finding was crucial in determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. The court's detailed analysis of the plaintiff's earning capacity, the impact of the mining industry, and the nature of the services claimed for damages led to the final award of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $866,486.58

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.