Placer (PNG) Pty Ltd v Anderson - [1997] QCA 74

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 074
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 6559 of 1996

Brisbane

[Placer (PNG) P/L v. Anderson]

BETWEEN:

PLACER (PNG) PTY. LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

BARRY GAVIN ANDERSON

(Plaintiff) Respondent
Davies J.A. Williams J. Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 18 April 1997

Joint reasons for judgment of Davies J.A. and Mackenzie J.; separate judgment of Williams J. agreeing with the orders made.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

CATCHWORDS:	PERSONAL INJURIES - employment contract - clearly inappropriate forum - factors relevant to determining forum considered - proper law of contract. Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] 1 A.C. 460 Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. (1990) 171 C.L.R. 538
Counsel:	Mr. R. N. Chesterman Q.C., with him Mr. M. A. Drew for the appellant Mr. S. G. Jones Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	McInnes Wilson & Jensen, town agents for Connolly Suthers, Townsville for the appellant Quinlan Miller & Treston, town agents for Macrossan & Amiet, Mackay for the respondent
Hearing Date:	8 April 1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 6559 of 1996

Brisbane

Before

Davies J.A. Williams J. Mackenzie J.

[Placer (PNG) P/L v. Anderson]

BETWEEN:

PLACER (PNG) PTY. LIMITED

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

BARRY GAVIN ANDERSON

(Plaintiff) Respondent

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A. AND MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered 18 April 1997

The appellant is the defendant in an action for breach of contract in the Supreme Court of

Queensland. It appeals to this Court from a refusal by a Judge of the Trial Division to stay the action

on the ground that that court is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of the action. The

appellant concedes that the appeal is against the exercise of a discretion with the difficulties that carries

for its success on appeal.

The respondent, who is the plaintiff in that action, was employed by the appellant pursuant to

a contract in writing dated 24 February 1992. During the course of his employment on 24 November

1992 he was injured whilst working at the appellant's mine at Porgera in Papua New Guinea. The

action, although framed in contract, was one for damages for personal injuries arising out of that incident. It is alleged that the respondent's injuries were caused by breaches by the appellant of its

contractual duties of care to the respondent as its employee.

At the time of his injury and at the time of commencement of these proceedings the respondent

was resident in Queensland. Negotiations leading to the making of the contract and the fulfilment by the

respondent of pre-contractual conditions took place in Queensland. However the contract was

executed in Papua New Guinea because, fortuitously, the respondent was temporarily working there

at that time.

The appellant submitted that the learned primary Judge could not reasonably have concluded

that the Supreme Court of Queensland was not a clearly inappropriate forum because a court in Papua

New Guinea was the natural…

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 Placer (PNG) Pty Ltd v Anderson 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: [1997] QCA 74
Decision Date: 18/04/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Placer (PNG) Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Australia, brought an action against Anderson, a former employee, in the Federal Court of Australia over a dispute related to personal injuries incurred during Anderson's employment. The primary focus of the case was the determination of the appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute and the applicable law governing the employment contract.

The court was tasked with resolving two main legal issues. Firstly, it had to determine whether the Australian forum was suitable for the adjudication of the dispute. Secondly, the court needed to establish the proper law of the employment contract, which would govern the rights and obligations of the parties involved. This decision was influenced by the principles laid down in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] 1 A.C. 460 and Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. (1990) 171 C.L.R. 538. The court considered various factors, including the location of the injury, the place of employment, and the terms of the contract, to determine the most appropriate forum and the applicable law.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature of the employment contract and the context in which the injury occurred. It found that the choice of forum was clearly inappropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the relevant factors in determining the proper law of the contract, including the place of performance and the location of the parties. Ultimately, the court concluded that the contract was governed by the law of Papua New Guinea, where the employment took place. This decision was based on the principle that the proper law of the contract should be the law with which the contract has its closest and most real connection.

The court's final orders were that the Australian forum was not suitable for the resolution of the dispute and that the law of Papua New Guinea should govern the employment contract. The case underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate forum and the applicable law in disputes involving personal injuries and employment contracts.

Orders