Legal Research
Cases
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Peachey

Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Peachey

Case [1998] QCA 400 1 December 1998

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 400
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 3072 of 1998

Brisbane

Before McMurdo P.
McPherson J.A.
Muir J.
[MIM v. Peachey]
BETWEEN:
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
ACN 009 661 447

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:
IAN GEORGE PEACHEY

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P.

Judgment delivered 1 December 1998

I have read the reasons for judgment of Muir J. and agree with him that the appeal should
be dismissed with costs for the reasons he has given.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 3072 of 1998

Brisbane

Before McMurdo P.
McPherson J.A.
Muir J.
[MIM v. Peachey]
BETWEEN:

MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
ACN 009 661 447

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

IAN GEORGE PEACHEY

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 1 December 1998

I agree that this appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Muir J.,
which I have had the advantage of reading. By way of addition to or expansion of those reasons,
I would add only the following two further observations.
One concerns the submission, advanced on this appeal for the first time, that the Workplace
Health and Safety Act 1989 had and has no application to the blacksmith’s shop in which the
plaintiff was working for the reason that it was a “mine” within the meaning of s.5 of the Mines
Regulation Act 1964. As to that, some of the difficulties inherent in the extremely wide definition
of “mine” in the corresponding definition in s.1.8(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 of the
word “mine”: were explored in Gonzo Holdings No. 50 Pty. Ltd. v. McKie [1966] 2 Qd.R. 240.
From what was said in the judgments in that decision, it is apparent that the question whether the
plaintiff’s injury was one that occurred in a “mine” is not capable of being determined without
reference to detailed and quite possibly contentious evidence about facts descriptive of that place.
Of such facts, there was no or little evidence at the trial of this action for the very good reason that
the issue was not raised below. That alone is sufficient to justify refusing the appellant leave to raise
that issue for the first time in the appeal to this Court.
The second observation I wish to make concerns the appellant’s attempt on appeal to bring
itself within the exception (“save where it is not practicable for the employer to do so”) to the
general duty imposed by s.9(1) of the Workplace Act of ensuring the health and safety at work of
all employees. It may be that an employer would not fail to perform its statutory duty under s.9(1)
if the injury to health sustained by the employee is traceable to some peculiar susceptibility or
vulnerability of which the employer did not in fact know and could not reasonably have been
expected to foresee or guard against: cf. Waugh v. Kippen

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 Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Peachey

Details

AGLC: Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Peachey [1998] QCA 400
Case: [1998] QCA 400
Decision Date: 1/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mount Isa Mines Ltd brought an appeal against a decision to dismiss its claim for indemnity from Peachey, a former employee who had sustained a medical condition while working for the appellant. The dispute centred on whether the employer had provided adequate footwear to the employee, which was claimed to have caused or accelerated the employee’s medical condition. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining whether the employer had complied with its duty under section 9(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld) to ensure the health and safety of employees at work. This involved assessing the adequacy of the employer’s provision of hard-soled boots to the employee and whether this provision met the required safety standards. Additionally, the court examined the application of section 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to the employee’s claim and the quantum of any potential indemnity owed by the employer.

The court found that the employer had fulfilled its duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act by providing the employee with suitable footwear. The court held that the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure the employee’s health and safety, and the footwear provided was appropriate for the employee’s role. Regarding the Limitation of Actions Act, the court determined that the employee’s claim was time-barred, thus precluding any indemnity from the employer. Consequently, the employer’s appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the employer bear its own costs of the appeal. The court also directed that the employer’s costs of the proceeding in the lower court be paid by the employee.

Orders