Kremer v Sandfire Resources Nl - [2020] WADC 130

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   KREMER -v- SANDFIRE RESOURCES NL [2020] WADC 130
CORAM:   TROY DCJ
HEARD:   27 & 28 AUGUST, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   25 SEPTEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1460 of 2018
BETWEEN:   ERIN BERNARDUS KREMER
Plaintiff
AND
SANDFIRE RESOURCES NL
Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Personal injury - Negligence - Whether employer in breach of duty of care - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 9
Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (WA), s 5

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr A A Nolan
Defendant	:	Mr D J Bayly

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	JDK Legal Services
Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Allied Pumps Pty Ltd v Hooker [2020] WASCA 72
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; (2002) 211 CLR 540
Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
Xavier v ROPS Engineering Australia Pty Ltd [2019] WADC 146

TROY DCJ:

Introduction

On 2 November 2015 the defendant company, Sandfire Resources NL (Sandfire), held a function to commemorate the Melbourne Cup horse race at their DeGrussa Copper and Gold Mine, some 900 km north‑east of Perth. Sandfire is a mining and exploration company and was the owner and operator of this mine site. Sandfire set up and encouraged its employees to use a designated recreational zone. The 2015 Melbourne Cup function was held in this recreational zone.
As of 2 November 2015 the plaintiff, Mr Erin Kremer, was a 42‑year‑old senior underground geological technician whom Sandfire employed at the mine site. He attended the function.
As part of the function, Sandfire organised a number of Melbourne Cup themed, team-based activities for its employees. Each activity attracted a 'score' to enable a 'winning' and 'losing' team to be identified at the end of the function. The final such activity was a competitive relay race at the function. This was a 'tie-breaker' to determine if the geology team or the safety team placed last. Mr Kremer participated in this race, as did another employee, a Mr Juan Manuel Santos. Mr Santos worked in the safety department. There were four participants in each team. The relay race required each participant to place a wooden 'hobby-horse' between their legs. They would then line up next to their opponent around a rectangular shaped cricket pitch and race each other.
Mr Kremer contends that as he and Mr Santos approached a left‑hand turn in their relay leg, Mr Santos tripped him from behind, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground, landing on his outstretched right arm. He indisputably suffered injury to his right shoulder and arm.
The particulars of breach of…

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.

Continue reading Kremer v Sandfire Resources Nl

Details

AGLC: Kremer v Sandfire Resources Nl [2020] WADC 130
Case: [2020] WADC 130
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Kremer sued Sandfire Resources, alleging negligence arising from a workplace injury. Kremer claimed that Sandfire, as his employer, failed to provide a safe working environment, resulting in his personal injury. The case hinged on whether Sandfire breached its duty of care to Kremer by not adhering to safety protocols, which allegedly led to his injuries. The court needed to determine the specific legal standards applicable to the employer's duty of care in this context and whether Sandfire's actions or inactions fell short of these standards.

The primary legal issue was the extent of the employer's duty of care to prevent workplace injuries. The court had to consider whether Sandfire's safety measures were adequate and whether any omissions or negligence on their part directly contributed to Kremer's injury. The court also needed to examine if there were any contributory factors on Kremer's part that might mitigate Sandfire's liability. This involved a detailed analysis of the applicable statutory provisions, common law principles, and relevant case law.

The court found that Sandfire did breach its duty of care to Kremer. It concluded that the employer's safety protocols were insufficient and that Sandfire failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury. The court further determined that Sandfire's breach directly caused Kremer's injuries. As a result, the court held Sandfire liable for Kremer's damages. The judgment detailed the specific breaches and the causal link between those breaches and the injury, providing a comprehensive legal basis for the decision.

Orders