Macpherson v Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd

In the matter of Macpherson v Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Macpherson, sought a declaration that a notice provided by the respondent, Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd, was not required under section 49(2) of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 (Qld). Macpherson argued that the notice, which pertained to an appreciable increase in the level of risk to a coal mine worker, should not apply to changes in a worker's own health. The court was required to interpret section 49(2) of the Regulation in light of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 2001 (Qld) and determine if the notice was obligatory under the statutory provisions.

The court examined the language of section 49(2) and considered its context within the broader statutory framework. The court recognised that the section must be interpreted in light of the Regulation and the Act. The court concluded that the notice was not required because section 49(2) was intended to address changes in the working environment or conditions that affect workers’ safety and health, rather than changes in individual workers' health. Additionally, the court considered the potential futility of the declaration, given that the respondent could potentially use other provisions of the Regulation to achieve a similar result. The court also noted that the subject notices had no consequence on the applicant’s employment.

The court found that the declaration sought by the applicant had no utility and was unlikely to achieve any meaningful relief. The court held that upon the proper construction of section 49(2) of the Regulation, the notice dated 24 February 2005 in relation to Macpherson was not a notice which the respondent was permitted or obliged to give according to that section. The court therefore granted the declaration as sought by the applicant.