Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL

Case [2008] WASC 30 (S)


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : PIERRE -v- ANVIL MINING MANAGEMENT NL
[2008] WASC 30 (S)
CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD
:  27 FEBRUARY 2008 & 29 JULY 2008
DELIVERED 
:  27 FEBRUARY 2008
SUPPLEMENTARY 
DECISION 
:  22 OCTOBER 2008
FILE NO/S 
:  CIV 2103 of 2007
BETWEEN  : KUNDA MUSOPELO PIERRE

First Applicant

KALINGA VICTORINE LWANZA as personal
representative of MASOKO SOPHIE KABANGO

(Dec)

Second Applicant

ROGER NWAMBA ILUNGA

Third Applicant

CHAMPO ARNOLD MUMBA

Fourth Applicant

CLEMENTINE KYUNGU NDUBIE MUKEYA as
personal representative of JOSEPH KAPYA
KAYOMBO (Dec)

Fifth Applicant

JEAN CLAUDE MWAMBA MUKALAY as personal
representative of AUGUSTINE TABU MWAMBA
(Dec)
Sixth Applicant

[2008] WASC 30 (S)

JEANNE MASENGO SHIKWILA on her own behalf
and as personal representative of STANISLAS
KABWEBWE KITANIKA (Dec)

Seventh Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal
representative of LWEMBE KAPIA (Dec)

Eighth Applicant

MISEMPO IDA NGOMBE as personal representative
of MWILADOWE NDEKANDEKA SANDUKU
(Dec)

Ninth Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal
representative of MWANGE KAPIA (Dec)

Tenth Applicant

NGOY EZEKIEL LUNE WA YUMBA

Eleventh Applicant

LWEMBE NETI KIMPWA as personal representative
of SHIMPUNDU PILATI (Dec)

Twelfth Applicant

BANZA BRANJA N'KULU

Thirteenth Applicant

NGONGWE DAVID KISALA as personal
representative of NGONGWE DAVID +KISALA
(Dec)

Fourteenth Applicant

MULIMBI EMMAN MULIMBI as personal
representative of NYEMBO ELISE MULIMBI (Dec)

Fifteenth Applicant

CHRISTOPHE MUSINGE SAMBA

Sixteenth Applicant

MUKALAY ALBERT KITANIKA
Seventeenth Applicant

[2008] WASC 30 (S)

NKULU NORBERT BUSUMA

Eighteenth Applicant

YUMBA YENZA as personal representative of
BONSTON MUILAMBUE (Dec)

Nineteenth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA

Twentieth Applicant

JACQUELINE MUKALAY

Twenty-First Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA JNR
(Dec)

Twenty-Second Applicant

WILLY MUTONDO

Twenty-Third Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of MONGA DONATIEN WA MONGA
(Dec)

Twenty-Fourth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of MUSONDA JENOVIC CONGO
(Dec)

Twenty-Fifth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of MWIKA FABIOLA MUSONDA
(Dec)

Twenty-Sixth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of KYUNGU DAMIEN MURELWA
(Dec)
Twenty-Seventh Applicant

[2008] WASC 30 (S)

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KALUMBA FRANCAISE KAPONDA (Dec)

Twenty-Eighth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of KALEMBE ABBOTINE KAPULO
(Dec)

Twenty-Ninth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal
representative of MUSONDA GIRES CONGO (Dec)

Thirtieth Applicant

IRENE NUNBI WA NUNBI

Thirty-First Applicant

BENOIT KISHINBA NAKOBA

Thirty-Second Applicant

DENISE NAUBYE KASENGESHA

Thirty-Third Applicant

PHILIPPE KASONGO LUPITALO

Thirty-Fourth Applicant

MATTHIEU KALUNGA KILOMBO

Thirty-Fifth Applicant

JEAN PAUL NGOBA MULENGA

Thirty-Sixth Applicant

LOUISA HARI INAONEKANA

Thirty-Seventh Applicant

JACQUELINE KASUBA KYONBA

Thirty-Eighth Applicant

PROSJENINE KYOMBA LUKWESA
Thirty-Ninth Applicant

[2008] WASC 30 (S)

ASTRIDO KISHINBA NDOBA

Fortieth Applicant

CECILE KABELWE KALWA

Forty-First Applicant

CHRISOPHE KAZENBA KANBI

Forty-Second Applicant

BIBI MUTONBO JULUNGA

Forty-Third Applicant

ELIZABETH KIPITA KALONDA
Forty-Fourth Applicant

LEONTINE MITONGA MWABA on her own behalf and as next friend of MWABO MAMGWE MWABA and KAOMBE FRANCISCO MWABA

Forty-Fifth Applicant

IMELAE MWELWA MWAPE

Forty-Sixth Applicant

ASTRIDA KABAGO KYABLA

Forty-Seventh Applicant

ALPHONSHIA MWANTO LUKWOSA

Forty-Eighth Applicant

STANY KABWE KITANIKA on her own behalf and
as personal representative of JEANWE MASENGO
SHIKWILA (Dec)

Continue reading Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL [2008] WASC 30 (S)
Case
[2008] WASC 30 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL arose in the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute between a former employee and the company he was employed by. The plaintiff, Pierre, sought compensation for injuries sustained during his employment and for breach of contract. Anvil Mining Management NL, the defendant, denied liability for the injuries and argued that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded. The legal issues the court needed to resolve included whether the defendant was liable for the injuries and whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, as well as the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. It examined the terms of the employment contract, the nature of the injuries, and the extent of the defendant's liability. The court also took into account the conduct of the parties during the proceedings, including the application by the respondents for an order that costs be paid by the applicants' solicitors. The court concluded that the defendant was liable for the injuries and breach of contract and ordered the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff. The court also made an order regarding the costs, determining that the application by the respondents for an order that costs be paid by the applicants' solicitors would turn on the facts of the case.

In its judgment, the court held that the defendant was liable for the injuries and breach of contract. The court found that the defendant had failed to provide a safe working environment and had breached the terms of the employment contract. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the injuries and breach of contract. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation in the amount of $150,000. The court also made an order regarding the costs, determining that the application by the respondents for an order that costs be paid by the applicants' solicitors would turn on the facts of the case. The court noted that the respondents had conducted themselves reasonably throughout the proceedings and that the applicants' solicitors had acted unreasonably in certain respects. The court ordered the applicants' solicitors to pay the respondents' costs in the amount of $20,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.