Sanders v Mount Isa Mines Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sanders v Mount Isa Mines Limited & Ors [2023] QSC 188

PARTIES:

BETHANY SANDERS BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN JIM SEETO

(plaintiff)
v
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED

(ACN 009 661 447), XSTRATA PLC (INCORPORATED IN ENGLAND AND WALES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1985 REG NUMBER 4345939) AND XSTRATA QUEENSLAND LIMITED (ACN 009 814 019) (MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED) (XSTRATA PLC)

(defendants)

FILENO/S:

BS No 7608 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON:

25 August 2023

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

9 May 2022 to 2 June 2022, 6 June 2022 and 13 July 2022

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDERS:

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT the parties provide to the Associate to Williams J by 4pm on 8 September 2023:

1.   submissions of no more than five pages identifying any further findings required and the basis for the proposed findings; and

2.   an agreed draft order finalising the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE: EXISTENCE – FACTORS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF DUTY –

GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries alleging she suffers brain damage and neurological injury as a result of lead poisoning caused by the defendants’ negligence – where the defendants have undertaken mining activities in Mount Isa since 1924, with the plaintiff’s claim putting in issue the operation of the mine from 1990 to 2008 – where the plaintiff resided within three kilometres of the mining and smelting operations carried out by the defendants in 2007 – where the defendants submit that the lead emissions caused by the mining and smelting

operations were within prescribed limits and lawful, and the

amount of lead capable of inhalation and ingestion was negligible – whether the defendants owed the plaintiff and other members of the community in Mount Isa a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a risk of injury that was reasonably foreseeable and not insignificant

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – GENERALLY

–    where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries alleging she suffers brain damage and neurological injury as a result of lead poisoning caused by the defendants’ negligence

–   where the plaintiff submits that the defendants duty of care involved an obligation by the defendants to warn parents of the risk of injury to their children and steps that could be taken to avoid the risk – where the first defendant supported initiatives in Mount Isa in the 1990s related to blood lead levels of people in Mount Isa and participated in Queensland Health’s “Get Bled for Lead” campaign in 2006 to 2008 – where the plaintiff submits that this did not discharge the defendants duty of care

–   whether, if a duty of care arose, the scope of duty involved an obligation by the defendants to warn parents of the risk of injury to their children and steps that could be taken to avoid the risk – whether the defendants breached any such duty