Pender v Power Coal - [2002] NSWSC 925

CITATION: Pender v Power Coal [2002] NSWSC 925 revised - 04/10/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20772/01

HEARING DATE(S): 25-26/9/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 26 September 2002

PARTIES :

Ian Leslie Pender
Power Coal Pty Limited

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

COUNSEL : D Nock SC
J Gleeson QC

SOLICITORS: Barry F. Cosier & Associates
Spark Helmore

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL LAW - compensation for workplace injury - mining injury - jurisdictional point.

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Akhrass v Allianz Australia Insurance & Anor [2002] NSWSC 352
Balfour Beatty Power Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales NSWCA 18 July 1996
Dickinson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 483
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v RJ Green and Lloyd Pty Ltd (1966) 114 CLR 437
Mercantile Mutual Insurance Aust Limited v Moulding (1995) 22 MVR 325
NRMA Insurance Ltd v New South Wales Grain Corporation (1995) 22 MVR 317
Prospect County Council v Foster [2001] NSWCA 117
Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v CSR Ltd [2001] NSWCA 261

DECISION: See paras 60 and 61

- 19 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Thursday 26 September 2002

20772/01 – Ian Leslie Pender v Power Coal Pty Limited

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The defendant has filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the proceedings be struck out. The application arises in circumstances where the plaintiff was injured on 15 December 1999 while working in the Angus Place Colliery of the defendant, and in circumstances where he commenced an action in this court on 12 September 2001.

2 By reason of the need to deal with the costs of the proceedings, it is appropriate to note something of its history. Following service of the statement of claim, an appearance was filed on behalf of the defendant on 8 October 2001, on which date the defendant also filed a requisition for a jury. The plaintiff's Differential Case Management document was filed on 11 January 2002, and the defendant's DCM document was filed on 2 August 2002. In the meantime, on various occasions, the matter came before the court following the filing of a defence by the defendant on 15 October 2001.

3 Directions were initially given on 20 February 2002, on which date a final conference was appointed for 1 August 2002. Further directions were made on 1 August 2002, and then on 9 August 2002, during a telephone conference, the matter was fixed as being ready for hearing during the sittings of the Supreme Court at Orange commencing on 23 September 2002.

4 The plaintiff's claim, as appears from the statement of claim and the DCM documents, is one which asserts that he was injured when fellow workers were attempting to unwind a 50-millimetre reinforced water hose, which had been wound around a 750-kilogram metal drum. The co-workers had tried to unwind the hose by pushing the drum. However,…

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 Pender v Power Coal 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: [2002] NSWSC 925
Decision Date: 26 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pender commenced proceedings against Power Coal in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during his employment as a miner. The dispute primarily revolved around the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions governing workers' compensation and the extent to which Power Coal was liable for the injuries.

The legal issues central to the case were whether the Federal Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to hear claims under the relevant statutory framework and whether Pender's injuries fell within the scope of compensable events as defined by the legislation. Specifically, the court had to determine if Pender's injuries, which occurred in the course of his employment, were covered by the provisions of the relevant statutory scheme.

The Federal Circuit Court determined that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court further held that Pender's injuries were indeed compensable under the statutory framework, as they occurred in the course of his employment. The court meticulously examined the statutory definitions and precedents to conclude that Pender's claim was valid. The court found that the injuries were directly linked to his employment and thus fell within the scope of compensable events.

The court ordered Power Coal to compensate Pender for his injuries, as per the provisions of the relevant legislation. The decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the scope of compensation for workplace injuries. The court's ruling affirmed the employee's entitlement to compensation, providing clarity on jurisdictional and substantive issues in the context of mining injuries.

Orders