SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Tyndall v Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] QSC 119
PARTIES:
JAMIE LEE TYNDALL
(plaintiff)
v
KESTREL COAL PTY LTD(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
SC No 646 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
27 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
14, 15,16, 22, 23 April 2021
JUDGE:
Crow J
ORDER:
1. The parties are directed to bring a minute of orders in favour of the plaintiff reflecting the Court’s judgment by 4:00pm 1 June 2021.
2. The proceeding is listed at 9:00am 2 June 2021 for the making of formal orders reflecting the agreed position or, in default of agreement, for the resolution of any remaining disputes.
3. The parties will be heard as to the orders which should be made as to costs at the hearing referred to in order 2.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION – RISK OF HARM: FORESEEABLE AND NOT INSIGNIFICANT – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant – where the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – where the plaintiff operated machinery in the course of their employment – where the plaintiff suffers from vibration induced white finger syndrome – whether the injury, being vibration induced white finger syndrome, was foreseeable, not insignificant, and reasonable to take precautions against, pursuant to s 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – whether the defendant breached their duty of care
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – CAUSATION – UNDER CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant – where the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care – where the plaintiff operated large machinery in the course of their employment – where the plaintiff suffers from vibration induced white finger syndrome – where the defendant alleges that the plaintiff’s previous employment and medical history are the causes of his injury – whether the defendant’s breach of duty was a necessary condition of the injury under s 305D of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
DAMAGES – GENERALLY – MITIGATION OF DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered an injury in the course of employment – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury arising from employment - where the defendant employer offered alternative roles to the plaintiff – where the where the plaintiff did not re-commence work in alternative roles nor look for alternative work – whether the plaintiff, by their failure to re-commence or look for alternative work, failed to mitigate their loss
DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered an injury in the course of employment – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury arising from employment – where damages are assessed under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tyndall v Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] QSC 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant owed Tyndall a duty of care and, if so, whether that duty was breached. The court also needed to establish if the injuries were foreseeable and not insignificant, and whether the defendant's breach of duty was a necessary condition of the injuries, as well as whether Tyndall had mitigated their damages. In determining these issues, the court considered statutory provisions under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and relevant common law principles.
The court found that the defendant owed Tyndall a duty of care, which was breached by failing to provide a safe working environment and adequate training. The injuries were held to be foreseeable and not insignificant, satisfying the requirements of the statutory provisions. The court also determined that the defendant's breach of duty was a necessary condition of the injuries, rejecting the defendant's argument that Tyndall's previous employment and medical history were the causes. Regarding mitigation, the court found that Tyndall had not mitigated their damages by not recommencing work in alternative roles or seeking alternative employment.
The court ordered that the parties bring a minute of orders in favour of the plaintiff by 4:00pm 1 June 2021 and listed the proceeding for 9:00am 2 June 2021 for the making of formal orders or resolution of remaining disputes. The parties were to be heard as to the orders which should be made as to costs at the hearing referred to in order 2.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The parties are directed to bring a minute of orders in favour of the plaintiff reflecting the Court’s judgment by 4:00pm 1 June 2021.
2. The proceeding is listed at 9:00am 2 June 2021 for the making of formal orders reflecting the agreed position or, in default of agreement, for the resolution of any remaining disputes.
3. The parties will be heard as to the orders which should be made as to costs at the hearing referred to in order 2.
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.