Smith v Ulan Coal Mines Limited (No 2) - [2020] NSWSC 416

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Smith v Ulan Coal Mines Limited (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 416
Hearing dates: 14.10.2019; 15.10.2019; 16.10.2019; 18.10.2019; 10.12.2019
Decision date: 21 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL
Decision:
(1) Verdict for the defendant.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY – injury to contractor in a coal mine – position of contractor analogous to that of an employee – plaintiff suffered high pressure fluid injury to hand – credit difficulties confronting plaintiff – analysis of evidence – whether plaintiff established that an unknown person found a leak in a hydraulic hose and ignored it – whether plaintiff’s version of facts established on balance – whether plaintiff’s injury reasonably foreseeable – problems with plaintiff’s evidence – whether an unknown person intervened to repair hydraulic fitting – whether plaintiff failed to establish how accident occurred – consequences of failure by plaintiff to establish how accident occurred – whether plaintiff successful in establishing a failure to guard – error in plaintiff’s hindsight approach to that question – application of Civil Liability Act 2002 – failure of plaintiff to establish liability – verdict for defendant.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – ss 5B, 5C
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002 (NSW)
Coal Mine Health and Safety Regulation 2006
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 254(b)(iii), 546D(1)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) – s 32
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011
Cases Cited: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Limited v Ryan & Ors [2002] HCA 54; 211 CLR 540
Hallmark Construction Pty Ltd v Brett Harford; Copeland Building Services Pty Ltd v Hallmark Construction Pty Ltd; Hallmark Construction Pty Ltd v Harford Transport Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 41
Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver [2001] HCA 24; 75 ALJR 867
Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council [2005] HCA 63; 223 CLR 486
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holding [2000] HCA 18; 200 CLR 121
Smith v Ulan Coal Mines Limited [2019] NSWSC 1263
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317
TNT Australia v Christie and Ors [2003] NSWCA 47
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Smith – Plaintiff
Ulan Coal Mines Limited – First Defendant
Trade Services Pty Ltd – Second Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
P Webb QC/DR Benson – Plaintiff
M Scott/A Cameron – First Defendant
Solicitors:
Kells – Plaintiff
Sparke Helmore Lawyers – Defendants

File Number(s): 2016/173109
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

Nature of proceedings

The first defendant was at all relevant times the operator of the Ulan West Coal Mine. The plaintiff was at all relevant times an employee of Trade Services Pty Ltd (Trade Services). The first defendant contracted with Trade Services for the supply of labour hire personnel. On or about 24 April 2014, Trade Services supplied the plaintiff to the first defendant for the plaintiff…

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 Smith v Ulan Coal Mines Limited (No 2) 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: [2020] NSWSC 416
Decision Date: 21 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smith v Ulan Coal Mines Limited (No 2), the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, a contractor working at the defendant's coal mine, sought damages for a high-pressure fluid injury to his hand. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligence led to the injury. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to take adequate safety precautions, resulting in the injury, and that the defendant's liability should be determined based on the position of the plaintiff, which is analogous to that of an employee.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had established that an unknown person found a leak in a hydraulic hose and ignored it, and whether the plaintiff's version of the facts was established on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's injury was reasonably foreseeable, and if there was any evidence of an unknown person intervening to repair a hydraulic fitting. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff failed to establish how the accident occurred, and if so, what the consequences of that failure were. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff successfully established a failure to guard, and if there was an error in the plaintiff's hindsight approach to that question. The application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 was also a key consideration in the decision.

The court found that the plaintiff had not established the facts necessary to prove negligence on the balance of probabilities. There were significant problems with the plaintiff's evidence, and the court could not be satisfied that the plaintiff had demonstrated how the accident occurred. The court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to establish how the accident occurred meant that the plaintiff had not successfully established a failure to guard, and the plaintiff's hindsight approach to that question was in error. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff had not proven the defendant's liability, and the verdict was in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders