Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd - [2017] QSC 184

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 184

PARTIES:

FRANK RICHARD MILLS

(Plaintiff)

v

BHP COAL PTY LTD (ACN 010 595 721)

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S4 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

21, 22 August 2017. Final submissions received 28 August 2017.

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $853,002.20.

2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES– GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment – where liability is conceded on the pleadings – where several heads of loss have been agreed.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where general damages for pain and suffering remain to be determined – where counsel are agreed on the nature of the injury – where counsel cannot agree on the appropriate ISV – whether the maximum dominant ISV is sufficient – whether an uplift should be applied – whether an uplift in the given circumstances is justified.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS – where plaintiff has returned to pre-accident employment – where the plaintiff works under modified duties program –where there is a dispute as to how long the plaintiff will last in employment – where there is a dispute as how long the plaintiff would have maintained employment had the injury not occurred – whether the plaintiff if uninjured would have maintained employment in the mining industry until aged 70.

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 23(5A)

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) s19

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 306J, s306L, s 306P

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 130, Schedule 8 and Schedule 9

Baldwin v Lisicic [1993] NSWCA 18, considered

Haylett v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 176, cited

Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270, distinguished

Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638; [1990] HCA 20, applied

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, cited

Sharman v Evans (1997) 138 CLR 563, cited

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

COUNSEL:

GF Crow QC with S Deaves for the Plaintiff

GC O’Driscoll for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan and Amiet Solicitors for the Plaintiff

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Defendant

McMEEKIN J: Frank Mills claims damages for injuries that he suffered on 1 October 2014 in the course of his employment with the defendant, BHP Coal Pty Ltd (“BHP”). The injuries occurred when he endeavoured to open a stuck butterfly valve on a vac pump. He damaged his cervical spine and right rotator cuff.

Liability for the injury is conceded on the pleadings. Several heads of loss have been agreed. The issues that remain to be determined now are principally general 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.

Continue reading Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 184
Case: [2017] QSC 184
Decision Date: 31 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd involved a dispute over damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff during his employment with the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant conceded liability for the injuries on the pleadings. Several heads of loss had been agreed upon, but there remained unresolved issues regarding general damages for pain and suffering, future economic loss, and whether an uplift in damages was appropriate.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount for general damages, considering that counsel agreed on the nature of the injury but differed on the appropriate Incremental Severity Value (ISV). The court needed to assess whether the maximum dominant ISV was sufficient or if an uplift was warranted. Additionally, the court had to decide on future economic loss, particularly given the plaintiff's return to employment under a modified duties program and the disputes over the duration of his continued employment in the mining industry.

The court found that the maximum dominant ISV was sufficient and declined to apply an uplift, as it was not justified in the circumstances. Regarding future economic loss, the court concluded that the plaintiff, if uninjured, would have maintained employment in the mining industry until age 70. The court awarded the plaintiff $853,002.20 in damages and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $853,002.20.

2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 184
PARTIES:	FRANK RICHARD MILLS (Plaintiff) v BHP COAL PTY LTD (ACN 010 595 721) (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S4 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	31 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	21, 22 August 2017. Final submissions received 28 August 2017.
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $853,002.20. 2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES– GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment – where liability is conceded on the pleadings – where several heads of loss have been agreed. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where general damages for pain and suffering remain to be determined – where counsel are agreed on the nature of the injury – where counsel cannot agree on the appropriate ISV – whether the maximum dominant ISV is sufficient – whether an uplift should be applied – whether an uplift in the given circumstances is justified. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS – where plaintiff has returned to pre-accident employment – where the plaintiff works under modified duties program –where there is a dispute as to how long the plaintiff will last in employment – where there is a dispute as how long the plaintiff would have maintained employment had the injury not occurred – whether the plaintiff if uninjured would have maintained employment in the mining industry until aged 70. Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 23(5A) Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) s19 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 306J, s306L, s 306P Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 130, Schedule 8 and Schedule 9 Baldwin v Lisicic [1993] NSWCA 18, considered Haylett v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 176, cited Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270, distinguished Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638; [1990] HCA 20, applied Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, cited Sharman v Evans (1997) 138 CLR 563, cited Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485, cited
COUNSEL:	GF Crow QC with S Deaves for the Plaintiff GC O’Driscoll for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Macrossan and Amiet Solicitors for the Plaintiff HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Defendant