United Airlines Inc v Sercel Australia Pty Ltd

In the New South Wales Court of Appeal, United Airlines Inc. (the applicant) sought to appeal a decision concerning a claim for recovery of workers' compensation payments made by Sercel Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent). The dispute arose from an injury sustained by a passenger during a flight landing in Texas, who was employed by the respondent and injured in the course of that employment. The respondent had made workers' compensation payments to the injured passenger through its insurer and sought to recover these payments from United Airlines.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the respondent could recover the workers' compensation payments from the applicant pursuant to section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), and whether the two-year time bar provision contained within Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention, as applied by the *Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959* (Cth), precluded the respondent's claim for indemnity and contribution. The Court also considered the principles of statutory interpretation in reconciling provisions of an Australian Act with international instruments and the application of private international law principles, particularly in distinguishing the present case from *Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang*.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the right of indemnity and contribution created by the New South Wales statute was not barred by the time limitation provisions of the Convention. It held that the two-year time bar in Article 29 of the Convention was not applicable to the respondent's claim for indemnity and contribution under the NSW Act. The Court found that the respondent was not barred from bringing proceedings and that the principles of statutory interpretation favoured an outcome that avoided unjust or capricious results, distinguishing the present circumstances from the High Court's decision in *Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang*.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal with costs.