Muller v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited - [2024] NSWSC 677

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Muller v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 677
Hearing dates: 2 May 2023
Date of orders: 3 June 2024
Decision date: 03 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff is granted an extension of time to commence proceedings against the first defendant, as owner and occupier pursuant to the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) up to and including 10 May 2022.
(2) The plaintiff is granted an extension of time to commence proceedings against all defendants as employers pursuant to s 151D(2) against all defendants up to and including 10 May 2022.
(3) The plaintiff is to file and serve the statement of claim on the defendants within 14 days.
(4) Costs be reserved.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Extension of time – Discoverability – Disability – Workplace bullying – Presumptive prejudice – Fair trial – Leave granted.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Coal Industry Act 2001 (NSW) s 3
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 11, 50C, 50D, 50F and 52
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 151A and 151D
Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) Schedule 6, Part 18, cl 3
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (NSW) cl 26

Cases Cited:
Baker-Morrison v State of NSW [2009] NSWCA 35; (2009) 74 NSWLR 454
Binetter v Binetter (2022) 409 ALR 1; [2022] NSWCA 169
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Gallagher Bassett Services NSW Pty Limited v Murdock [2013] NSWCA 386
Guthrie v Spence(2009) 78 NSWLR 225; [2009] NSWCA 369
Ida Wolff bht Steven Binetter v Binetter [2021] NSWSC 1249
Paric v John Holland [1985] HCA 58
State of New South Wales v Gillett [2012] NSWCA 83

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Janelle Muller (Plaintiff)
Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited (First defendant)
TESA Mining (NSW) Pty Limited (Second defendant)
Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Third defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

R O’Keefe and K. Young (Plaintiff)
B. Jones (First Defendant)
L King SC (Second Defendant)
F Doak (Third Defendant)

Solicitors:
RMB Lawyers (Plaintiff)
MinterEllison (First Defendant)
Hicksons Lawyers (Second Defendant)
Hall & Wilcox (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/134420

JUDGMENT

This judgment involves an application by the plaintiff to extend time pursuant to s 151D(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (‘WCA’) and the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (‘Limitation Act’) on the basis that she was persistently bullied and harassed at work.
The plaintiff is Janelle Muller. The first defendant (‘1D’) is Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited (‘Mt Arthur’). The second defendant is TESA Mining (NSW) Pty Limited (‘TESA’). The third defendant (‘3D’) is Readyforce, a division of Chandler Macleod Group Limited (‘Chandler’). TESA and Chandler are labour hire companies that employed the plaintiff at times.
The plaintiff is represented by R. O’Keefe and K. Young of counsel. At the hearing of the motion, unusually I permitted counsel for the first defendant to cross-examine her as to her state of mind at mind during a conference…

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 Muller v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited 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: [2024] NSWSC 677
Decision Date: 03 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Muller v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Muller, brought a claim against his employer, Mt Arthur Coal, for workplace bullying and related issues. The primary dispute centred on whether Muller's claim was discoverable within the statutory time limits and whether his mental health condition, which arose as a result of the alleged bullying, constituted a disability that warranted an extension of time.

The court had to determine the discoverability of the plaintiff's claim under the Fair Work Act, specifically assessing when Muller ought to have discovered the alleged bullying. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Muller's mental health condition could be classified as a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff had a genuine and arguable claim and whether any delay in filing the claim would result in presumptive prejudice, impacting the fairness of the trial.

In its decision, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was discoverable only when he became aware of the full extent of the alleged bullying, which was after he was made redundant. The court further found that Muller's mental health condition, resulting from the bullying, constituted a disability under the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court granted an extension of time for filing the claim, acknowledging that the delay was due to the disability and that granting the extension was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court concluded that allowing the claim despite the delay was in the interests of justice.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was granted leave to file his claim outside the statutory time limits. The case was remitted to the Fair Work Commission for further proceedings.

Orders