Legal Research
Cases
Thornton v Newcrest Mining Ltd

Thornton v Newcrest Mining Ltd

Case [2011] WASCA 92 12 April 2011

Statutory Construction

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: THORNTON -v- NEWCREST MINING LTD [2011] WASCA 92

CORAM: PULLIN JA
MURPHY JA
MURRAY J

HEARD: 22 MARCH 2011

DELIVERED : 12 APRIL 2011

FILE NO/S: CACV 49 of 2010

BETWEEN: MICHAEL EMERY THORNTON
Appellant
AND
NEWCREST MINING LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAZZA DCJ
Citation  :THORNTON -v- NEWCREST MINING LTD [2010] WADC 61
File No  :CIV 1475 of 2008

Catchwords:

Statutes - Statutory construction - Whether a consent judgment is a judgment within the meaning of s 7(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA)

Legislation:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA), s 7(1)(b)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr B L Nugawela
Respondent: Mr G R Hancy

Solicitors:

Appellant: Chapmans
Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox

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

Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd [1993] HCA 15; (1993) 177 CLR 485
Ayling v BHP Direct Reduced Iron Pty Ltd [2001] WADC 252; (2001) 27 SR (WA) 274
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 66; (2001) 205 CLR 635
Bayley v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd [2000] WADC 102
Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920430, 26 August 1992)
Darcy v Baines (1995) 12 SR (WA) 285
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union [2004] HCA 40; (2004) 221 CLR 309
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say‑Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89
Hunt v Knabe [No 2] (1992) 8 WAR 96
Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland (Inspector of Taxes) [1955] AC 667
McGraw‑Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith [1979] HCA 19; (1979) 144 CLR 633
Nau v Kemp & Associates [2010] NSWCA 164; [2010] Aust Torts Reports 82‑064
Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63; (1908) 7 CLR 277
Re Luck [2003] HCA 70; (2003) 203 ALR 1
Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 241 CLR 252
Tanska v Transport Accident Commission [2000] VSC 56; (2000) 30 MVR 561
Tingey v Christ Church Grammar School Inc [1999] WADC 111; (1999) 21 SR (WA) 357
Walker v Fares Rural Co Pty Ltd [2001] WADC 94

REASONS OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against the judgment of a District Court judge, Mazza DCJ, as his Honour then was. His Honour dismissed an appeal against an order of Deputy Registrar Hewitt in the District Court. The deputy registrar granted the respondent's application for summary judgment pursuant to O 16 and dismissed the appellant's action.
The events leading up to the award of the summary judgment are not in dispute. Those events are as follows. The appellant suffered injuries to his left leg in a workplace accident which occurred at the Telfer mine site. He was employed by Simon Engineering Pty…

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.

Continue reading Thornton v Newcrest Mining Ltd

Details

AGLC: Thornton v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2011] WASCA 92
Case: [2011] WASCA 92
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thornton v Newcrest Mining Ltd, the dispute involved the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning contributory negligence and tortfeasors' contribution. The plaintiff, Thornton, sought damages from Newcrest Mining Ltd for injuries sustained during his employment. The primary issue before the court was whether a consent judgment could be considered a judgment for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA). This statute requires the court to apportion liability among parties where multiple tortfeasors are involved and the plaintiff has contributed to the injury. The court was tasked with determining whether the statutory scheme applied to cases where parties had reached a settlement and subsequently entered a consent judgment, and if so, whether this judgment could be used to calculate apportionment under the Act.

The court examined the language of section 7(1) and concluded that a consent judgment, which resolves the dispute between the parties, falls within the definition of a judgment for the purposes of the Act. This interpretation was based on the fact that a consent judgment, like any other judgment, is a binding resolution of the dispute and therefore meets the statutory criteria. The court held that such a judgment could be used to determine the liability of each party and facilitate the apportionment of damages. By recognising consent judgments as judgments under the Act, the court ensured consistency in the application of the statutory provisions, irrespective of how the dispute was resolved.

The outcome of the case was that the consent judgment entered by the parties could indeed be considered a judgment for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA). Consequently, the apportionment of liability and contributory negligence could be assessed based on this judgment. The court's decision provided clarity for future cases involving consent judgments and statutory apportionment, ensuring that such judgments would be treated in the same manner as judgments resulting from a trial. The final orders would reflect this interpretation, allowing for the apportionment process to proceed as intended under the statutory framework.

Orders