Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd - [2014] NSWSC 1276

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1276
Hearing dates: 7 July 2014
Decision date: 18 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL
Decision:
As agreed between the parties make the following orders:
The Court declares that:
1. Employers Mutual NSW Ltd, the first cross defendant, is liable to indemnify the second defendant against any legal costs and liability for damages and/or compensation arising from the plaintiff's claim.
2. Employers Mutual NSW Ltd, the first cross defendant, is liable to reimburse the second defendant for the legal costs and disbursements reasonably incurred by the second defendant in conducting the defence of the plaintiff's claim as a prudent uninsured from 17 April 2013.
3. Employers Mutual NSW Ltd, the first cross defendant, is liable to pay the cost of the second defendant and Coal Mines Insurance Pty Ltd, the second cross defendant, in relation to the application, hearing and determination of the separate question for determination.
4. Employers Mutual NSW Ltd, the first cross defendant, is liable to pay interest on the amounts referred to in Declaration 2 at the pre-judgment Court interest rate.

Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION - coal industry - meaning of the expression "employer in the coal industry" - employee of drilling company injured while working at a coal mine - claim for damages by injured employee against drilling company - refusal of indemnity by drilling company's workers compensation insurer - whether "special" insurer of employers in the coal industry liable for injured employee's claim for damages.
Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1997 - s7A
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 - s9A
Cases Cited: Central West Group Apprentices Ltd v Coal Mines Insurance Ltd [2008] NSWCA 348
King v Central Reference Board & Ors; Ex parte Thiess (Repairs) Pty Ltd [1948] HCA 9; 77 CLR 123
R v Coldham & Ors; Ex parte The Australian Workers Union [1983] HCA 35; 163 CLR 415
R v Moore & Ors; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia [1978] HCA 51; 140 CLR 470
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Benjamin Kuypers - Plaintiff
Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd - First Defendant
Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd - Second Defendant
First Cross-Claim:
Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd - First Cross Claimant
Employers Mutual NSW Limited - First Cross Defendant
Coal Mines Insurance Pty Limited - Second Cross Defendant
Second Cross-Claim:
Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd - Second Cross Claimant
Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd - Cross Defendant to second cross-claim
Representation: Counsel:
Mr AR Harris QC/Mr NJ Floreani - First Cross Claimant
Mr I Roberts SC - First Cross Defendant
Mr L King SC/Mr B Odling - Second Cross Defendant
Solicitors:
Indemnity Legal Pty Ltd - First Cross Claimant
Stephen Lee Legal - First Cross Defendant
Sparke Helmore Lawyers - Second Cross Defendant

File Number(s): 2012/393861

Judgment

HIS HONOUR:

Nature of proceedings and background

The plaintiff has brought proceedings seeking damages…

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 Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations 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: [2014] NSWSC 1276
Decision Date: 18 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Kuypers v Ashton Coal Operations Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, an employee of a drilling company, was injured while working at a coal mine. The plaintiff sought to claim damages from the drilling company, but the company's workers compensation insurer refused to provide indemnity. The case turned on the interpretation of the term "employer in the coal industry" in the context of workers compensation legislation. The plaintiff argued that the drilling company, as an employer within the coal industry, should be subject to the same compensation obligations as other coal industry employers, including the requirement for special insurance coverage.

The court was required to decide whether the drilling company, as an employer in the coal industry, was subject to the same obligations as other coal industry employers under the relevant workers compensation legislation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the term "employer in the coal industry" encompassed employers who subcontracted work to coal mines, such as the drilling company in this case. The court also had to consider whether the drilling company's workers compensation insurer, as a "special" insurer of employers in the coal industry, was liable for the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court found that the term "employer in the coal industry" did indeed encompass employers who subcontracted work to coal mines, including the drilling company in this case. The court held that the drilling company was therefore subject to the same workers compensation obligations as other coal industry employers, including the requirement for special insurance coverage. The court further held that the drilling company's workers compensation insurer, as a "special" insurer of employers in the coal industry, was liable for the plaintiff's claim for damages. The court's decision was based on a purposive interpretation of the relevant legislation, which aimed to provide comprehensive workers compensation coverage for all employees in the coal industry.

The court ordered that the drilling company's workers compensation insurer was liable for the plaintiff's claim for damages, and that the insurer was required to indemnify the plaintiff for any losses suffered as a result of the injury. The court also ordered that the drilling company was subject to the same workers compensation obligations as other coal industry employers, including the requirement for special insurance coverage. The decision has important implications for employers in the coal industry, who must now ensure that they have appropriate workers compensation coverage in place to protect their employees and themselves from liability for workplace injuries.

Orders