Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Roche Mining Pty Limited v Graeme Wayne Jeffs Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 184 Hearing Date(s): 10 June 2011 Decision Date: 06 July 2011 Jurisdiction: Before: McColl JA at [1], Basten JA at [93], Tobias AJA at [108]
Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty of care - whether mine operator breached duty of care to plaintiff employee of labour hire company - plaintiff fell from steep ladder on dump truck while gaining access to its cabin - ladder too steep and lacking handrail extending to prescribed height in breach of Australian Standards - whether conclusion of breach made with hindsight
NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty of care - defect in means of access to cabin of dump truck - design flaw in vehicle manufactured by reputable business - whether mine operator breached duty of care
NEGLIGENCE - breach of duty of care - where risk that person in the plaintiff's position could fall from the ladder while climbing - whether reasonable person in position of mine operator would have taken precaution of installing transverse stair access system - relevance of common practice - relevance of Australian Standards - ss 5B, 5C, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
NEGLIGENCE - causation - whether primary judge could conclude as a matter of direct evidence or legitimate inference that installation of transverse stair access system would have prevented or minimised plaintiff's injuries- s 5E, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
APPEAL - "no evidence" point not taken at trial sought to be raised on appeal - interests of justice - whether point if taken at trial would have been fatal to respondent's case
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Coalmines Regulation Act 1982 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)Cases Cited: Certain Lloyds Underwriters v Giannopoulos [2009] NSWCA 56
Commissioner of Railways v Ruprecht [1979] HCA 37; (1979) 142 CLR 563
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1959] AC 604
Erwin v Iveco Trucks Australia Ltd [2010] NSWCA 113; (2010) 239 FLR 198
Galea v Bagtrans Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 350
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks [1957] HCA 28; (1957) 97 CLR 367
Jeffs v Rio Tinto Limited and Anor [2010] NSWSC 1046
Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; (2000) 205 CLR 166
Kuhl v Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 276 ALR 375
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox; Calliden Insurance Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Liftronic…
Continue reading Roche Mining Pty Ltd v Jeffs
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Roche Mining Pty Ltd v Jeffs [2011] NSWCA 184
- Case
- [2011] NSWCA 184
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that Roche Mining breached its duty of care to Mr Jeffs, and whether the primary judge erred in concluding that this breach caused or materially contributed to Mr Jeffs' injuries. Specifically, the court considered whether the conclusion of breach was made with the benefit of hindsight, the relevance of the design of the vehicle by its manufacturer, the adequacy of the means of access, the risk of a fall, and whether a reasonable mine operator would have installed a transverse stair access system, taking into account common practice and Australian Standards. The court also examined the application of sections 5B, 5C, and 5E of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) concerning the scope of duty, the standard of care, and causation.
The Court of Appeal, comprising McColl and Basten JJA and Tobias AJA, found no error in the primary judge's findings. The court reasoned that the mine operator's duty of care extended to ensuring the safety of the means of access to its machinery, even if the defect was a design flaw by the manufacturer. The court held that the risk of a person falling from the ladder was foreseeable and that a reasonable mine operator would have taken the precaution of installing a safer transverse stair access system, notwithstanding that this was not the common practice. The court also affirmed the primary judge's finding on causation, concluding that it was open to infer that the installation of such a system would have prevented or minimised the injuries sustained. The court also addressed the appellant's attempt to raise a "no evidence" point on appeal, which had not been taken at trial, and determined that the interests of justice did not require the point to be considered.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.