Legal Research
Cases
Matinca v Coalroc (No 5)

Matinca v Coalroc (No 5)

Case [2022] NSWSC 844 30 June 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matinca v Coalroc (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 844
Hearing dates: 31 May; 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 June 2021
Date of orders: 30 June 2022
Decision date: 30 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
See paragraph 169.

Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE – causation – scope of liability – determining the cause of the incident causing injury – whether work induced fatigue caused the relevant incident resulting in injury
NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – particular relationships – employer and employee – scope of duty – whether duty of care extends to travelling home from the workplace

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B
Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 69, 87
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 10
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Further Amendment Act 2001 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 151B, 282
Workers’ Compensation Act 1926 (NSW), s 63(5)

Cases Cited:
ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372; [1864] HCA 26
Ashrafi Persian Trading Co Pty Ltd (t/as Roslyn Gardens Motor Inn) v Ashrafinia [2001] NSWCA 243
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
C.A.L No 14 Pty Ltd (t/as Tandara Motor Inn) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390; [2009] HCA 47
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22
Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 56 ALJR 872
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74
Jury v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1935) 53 CLR 273; [1935] HCA 29
Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 304
Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Limited (2005) 222 CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15
Kozarov v Victoria [2022] HCA 12
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35
Lustre Hosiery Ltd v York (1935) 54 CLR 134; [1935] HCA 71
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352; [1952] HCA 19
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306; [1984] HCA 60
State of New South Wales v Paige (2002) 60 NSWLR 371; [2002] NSWCA 235
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562; [2001] HCA 59
Tabvena v Oag [2002] NSWCA 61
Tunney v Midland Railway Company (1866) LR 1 CP 291
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12
Zampetides v New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 829

Texts Cited:
“Rural Road Design”, Aust Roads (1989)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Troy Anthony Matinca (Plaintiff)
Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Cummings SC with P. Williams (Plaintiff)
M. McCulloch SC with D. Stanton…

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 Matinca v Coalroc (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Matinca v Coalroc (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 844
Case: [2022] NSWSC 844
Decision Date: 30 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Matinca v Coalroc (No 5) was brought forward by the plaintiff, Matinca, against the defendant, Coalroc. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an incident that occurred while he was travelling home from his place of employment. The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused by Coalroc's negligence, specifically that fatigue induced by his employment caused the incident that resulted in his injury. The central issue before the court was whether Coalroc's negligence in inducing fatigue in Matinca led to the incident that caused his injury, and if so, whether Coalroc's duty of care extended to the journey home from work.

The court was required to determine the legal principles governing the scope of liability in negligence cases involving work-induced fatigue and the extent of an employer's duty of care to an employee during their commute home. The court examined the relevant case law and legal principles surrounding the causation of injury and the extent of an employer's duty of care. The court considered whether Coalroc's actions in inducing fatigue in Matinca constituted a breach of their duty of care, and if that breach led to the incident that resulted in Matinca's injury. The court also considered the relationship between employer and employee in determining the scope of the employer's duty of care.

The court held that Coalroc was negligent in inducing fatigue in Matinca, which caused the incident that resulted in his injury. The court found that Coalroc's duty of care extended to the journey home from work, as the fatigue induced by Coalroc's negligence directly caused the incident. The court held that Coalroc was liable for Matinca's injuries and awarded damages accordingly. The court emphasised the importance of employers taking steps to prevent work-induced fatigue and ensuring that their employees are not put at risk of injury during their commute home.

Orders