Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd v Kearney

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd v Kearney
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 320
Hearing Date(s): 11 September 2012
Decision Date: 05 October 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before: Allsop P at [1]; 
Macfarlan JA at [2]; 
Tobias AJA at [25]
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: WORKERS COMPENSATION - worker injured whilst undertaking site rehabilitation at a coal mine where operations had been discontinued - whether worker was a "coal miner" for the purpose of Pt 18 Clause 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 - whether site of employment was a "mine" to which the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982 applied - whether mine had been abandoned - whether rehabilitation of site occurred "in connection with mining" for the purpose of the definition of "mine" in s 5(1)
Legislation Cited: Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002
Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001
Cases Cited: Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 456; 43 FCR 280
Cudgen R.Z. Ltd v Valuer-General (1974) 1 NSWLR 81 and (1974) 2 NSWLR 75
Re his Honour Warden Calder SM; Ex parte Lee [2007] WASCA 161
Re Nanaimo Community Hotel Ltd [1944] 4 DLR 638
Texts Cited: The Macquarie Dictionary, 5th ed (2009)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Michael Kearney (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
I D Roberts SC/P J Menary (Appellant)
H N Kelly SC/T F McKenzie (Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
DLA Piper Australia (Appellant)
Taylor & Scott Lawyers (Respondent)
File number(s): CA 2009/338134
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: McLoughlin DCJ
- Date of Decision: 15 June 2011
- Citation: Michael Kearney v Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd
- Court File Number(s) DC 2009/5108
Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

  1. ALLSOP P: I agree with Macfarlan JA.

  2. MACFARLAN JA: On 10 April 2006 Mr Michael Kearney, the respondent, was injured in the course of his employment by the appellant as a labourer at Kemira Colliery near Wollongong. The colliery operated as an underground coal mine between 1848 and 1991. Its two tunnels and four shafts were sealed in 1995. In June 2003 the Department of Primary Industries approved a Rehabilitation Master Plan for the site. Rehabilitation was necessary to enable Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd, the holder of a mining lease over the site, to relinquish the lease. That company engaged the appellant to carry out site rehabilitation and associated work including "[p]lacement and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control measures". Mr Kearney was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd v Kearney 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
[2012] NSWCA 320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute concerned whether the respondent, Mr Kearney, was a "coal miner" for the purposes of Part 18 Clause 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), and whether the site where he was injured constituted a "mine" to which the *Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982* (NSW) applied. Mr Kearney had been injured while undertaking site rehabilitation at a coal mine where operations had been discontinued.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the site of Mr Kearney's employment qualified as a "mine" under the relevant legislation, particularly given that mining operations had ceased. This involved determining whether the site had been abandoned and whether the rehabilitation work undertaken by Mr Kearney was "in connection with mining" as contemplated by the definition of "mine" in section 5(1) of the *Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982*. The court also had to consider whether Mr Kearney's role in site rehabilitation meant he was a "coal miner" for the purposes of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the definition of "mine" in section 5(1) of the *Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982* was broad and encompassed land from which minerals had been extracted, even if operations had ceased. The court found that the rehabilitation work was intrinsically linked to the prior mining activities, thus falling within the scope of "in connection with mining". Consequently, the site was considered a "mine" for the purposes of the Act. The court further held that Mr Kearney's engagement in rehabilitation activities on a former mine site, which was directly related to the mining operations, qualified him as a "coal miner" under the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*.

The appeal was dismissed, and Select Civil (Kiama) Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

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.