TARBOTTON -v- CITIC PACIFIC MINING MANAGEMENT PTY LTD [2015] WADC 159

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 159
Case No:	CIV:3443/2010	Heard:	19-21 OCTOBER 2015
Coram:	WAGER DCJ	Delivered:	22/12/15
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	26	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim against first, second and third defendant dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MURRAY JOHN TARBOTTON CITIC PACIFIC MINING MANAGEMENT PTY LTD OTRACO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD BUCYRUS MINING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Occupiers' liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) Common law principles Duty of care Causation Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5B, s 5C Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) s 4, s 5
Case References:	Department of Housing and Works v Smith [No 2] [2010] WASCA 25 Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wieland [2014] WASCA 41

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : TARBOTTON -v- CITIC PACIFIC MINING MANAGEMENT PTY LTD [2015] WADC 159 CORAM : WAGER DCJ HEARD : 19-21 OCTOBER 2015 DELIVERED : 22 DECEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 3443 of 2010 BETWEEN : MURRAY JOHN TARBOTTON

Plaintiff

AND

CITIC PACIFIC MINING MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

First Defendant

OTRACO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Second Defendant

BUCYRUS MINING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Occupiers' liability - Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) - Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) - Common law principles - Duty of care - Causation - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5B, s 5C

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) s 4, s 5

Result:

Plaintiff's claim against first, second and third defendant dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

First Defendant : Mr D Clyne

Second Defendant : Mr D Clyne

Third Defendant : Mr D M McKenna

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Not applicable

First Defendant : CCS Insurance Law

Second Defendant : CCS Insurance Law

Third Defendant : Jarman McKenna

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Department of Housing and Works v Smith [No 2] [2010] WASCA 25
Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wieland [2014] WASCA 41

1 WAGER DCJ: This trial deals only with the issue of liability. The plaintiff, Mr Tarbotton is self-represented. He relies on pleadings and related documents drafted by a firm of solicitors on his behalf who have now ceased to act. The first, second and third defendants are represented by counsel.

2 The first defendant, Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd (Citic Pacific) owned and occupied the Sino Iron Ore Magnetite project at Cape Preston in the Pilbara (the site).

3 The second defendant, Otraco International Pty Ltd (Otraco) carried out tyre-fitting on large scale heavy duty mining equipment such as excavators and haul packs. Otraco was contracted by Citic Pacific to perform this work on equipment at the site.

4 The third defendant, Bucyrus Mining Australia Pty Ltd (Bucyrus), constructed heavy duty mining equipment. Bucyrus was contracted by Citic Pacific to assemble heavy duty mining equipment such…

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 Tarbotton v Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd 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: [2015] WADC 159
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Tarbotton, sued Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd and two others, claiming damages for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The court had to determine whether the defendants breached any duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), and common law principles. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a safe working environment and were negligent in their management of the workplace. The defendants argued that they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure safety and that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by any breach of duty.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and common law precedents to assess the defendants' duty of care. It considered whether the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and whether they breached that duty. The court also evaluated if the defendants' actions were negligent under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA). Furthermore, it applied common law principles to determine if the defendants' actions fell below the standard of care expected in the circumstances. The court concluded that the defendants had not breached any duty of care, as they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the workplace. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by any breach of duty on the part of the defendants.

After thorough analysis, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against all three defendants. It held that the defendants were not liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as they had not breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), or common law principles. The court also found that the plaintiff's injuries were not causally linked to any breach of duty by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim against first, second and third defendant dismissed

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.