Roche Mining Pty Ltd v Jeffs

In *Roche Mining Pty Ltd v Jeffs*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Roche Mining Pty Ltd from a judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr Jeffs, who was an employee of a labour hire company working at Roche Mining's mine. Mr Jeffs suffered injuries when he fell from a steep ladder, which provided access to the cabin of a dump truck, while attempting to climb into it. The ladder was alleged to be non-compliant with Australian Standards, lacking a handrail extending to the prescribed height.

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.