Wainright v Barrick Gold of Australia Limited

WAINRIGHT -v- BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED [2012] WADC 79 (S)

Last Update: 10/07/2012

WAINRIGHT -v- BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED [2012] WADC 79 (S)
Pending Appeal	Link to Appeal:
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WADC 79 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1291/2007	Heard:	5 JULY 2012
Coram:	BOWDEN DCJ	Delivered:	08/06/2012
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	06/07/2012
No of Pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Amendments made as agreed Disputed amendment not made
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	SHEILA WAINRIGHT BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Catchwords:	Slip rule Amendment of judgment
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 21 r 10
Case References:	Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WAINRIGHT -v- BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED [2012] WADC 79 (S) CORAM : BOWDEN DCJ HEARD : 5 JULY 2012 DELIVERED : 8 JUNE 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 6 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1291 of 2007 BETWEEN : SHEILA WAINRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Defendant

Catchwords:

Slip rule - Amendment of judgment

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 21 r 10

Result:

Amendments made as agreed
Disputed amendment not made

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T Lampropoulos QC

Defendant : Mr M Greenland

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co

Defendant : Greenland Legal Pty Ltd

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

Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192

(Page 3)

1 BOWDEN DCJ: On 8 June 2012 I delivered judgment in this matter. I have been advised the judgment has not been extracted.

2 The parties have agreed that pursuant to O 21 r 10 of the Rules of the SupremeCourt 1971 the judgment ought be amended.

3 It is agreed that the loss on past superannuation be increased from $2,636 (including interest) to $14,245 on the basis that although I referred in [555] to an amount of $10,926 as the loss of past superannuation for the period 15January 2004 to 30September 2006, I omitted to add to the other amounts in [556]. I 'slipped' accordingly, the total referred to in [556] should be $13,408 from which 15% is deducted in accordance with Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192, resulting in an amount of $11,397 (rounded up) to which is added interest of $2,848 making an award of $14,245.

4 Although the defendant invited me to correct to 30% the Jongen deduction I decline to do so; 15% was the deduction I intended.

5 It is also agreed that special damages for which I had allowed $21,170 should be increased by $24,538 to reflect additional special damages paid pursuant to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. Accordingly, the total I allow for special damages is $45,708.

6 Further, it is agreed that the amount of $20,000 which I had allowed for past loss of earning should be increased by an amount of $22,918.88 nett to reflect payments made before 6 April 2005 pursuant to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. Accordingly I increase the past economic loss to $42,918.88.

7 I was also invited to amend the judgment in relation to the past loss of earning capacity for the period from 7 April 2005 (the date Ms Wainwright ceased work) through to 5 February 2007 (the date workers' compensation payments ceased). That amount calculates to approximately $70,000.

8 It was suggested that as I found Ms Wainwright's employment was terminated in September 2006 and their was no plea or finding that she had failed to mitigate her loss by not accepting a job, an allowance ought be made as it was reasonable for her to seek to minimize her loss of employment by accepting workers compensation payments to avoid the consequence of the loss (ts 1344 - 1345). It was suggested a period of approximately five months (ts 1351) ought be allowed as a reasonable period for her to find other employment.

(Page 4)

9 This amendment was opposed by Mr Greenland.

10 In my opinion this would involve a consideration of new issues not covered in the judgment and therefore outside of the slip rule and I decline to make that amendment.

11 Accordingly the damages I allow the plaintiff are as follows:

1. General damages: $50,000.00

2. Past economic loss: $42,918.88

3. Interest on past economic loss: $4,300.00

4. Fox v Wood allowance: $32,597.00

5. Future economic loss: $15,550.00

6. Loss of past superannuation: $14,245.00

7. Loss of future superannuation: $2,321.00

8. Special damages: $45,708.00

9. Future medical expenses: $3,509.00

Total $211,148.88

| |

The case of Wainright versus Barrick Gold of Australia Limited was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Wainright, alleged that Barrick Gold had breached certain environmental laws during their gold mining operations. The dispute centred around the extent of Barrick Gold's responsibility for environmental damage, particularly in relation to the discharge of pollutants into nearby water bodies. The Court was asked to determine whether Barrick Gold had indeed breached the relevant environmental regulations and, if so, to what extent they were liable for the damage caused.

The primary legal issues the Court needed to resolve included the interpretation of the relevant environmental laws, the extent of Barrick Gold's liability under these laws, and whether the plaintiff's claims were within the statute of limitations. The Court also needed to consider whether an amendment to the judgment was appropriate, particularly in light of an agreement between the parties regarding the terms of the judgment.

The Court found that the plaintiff had indeed proven that Barrick Gold had breached the environmental laws in question. However, the Court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were partly outside the statute of limitations, and therefore, those claims were dismissed. The Court also considered the parties' agreement on certain amendments to the judgment. While most of the proposed amendments were accepted and incorporated, the Court declined to make one specific amendment that was contested by the defendant. The Court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the legal arguments presented and the terms of the agreement between the parties. The Court concluded that the agreed amendments accurately reflected the outcome of the case and did not prejudice the rights of the defendant.

The Court made the agreed amendments to the judgment and declined to make the disputed amendment. The final orders of the Court included the confirmation of Barrick Gold's liability for certain breaches of environmental laws, the dismissal of claims that were outside the statute of limitations, and the incorporation of the agreed amendments into the judgment. The Court's decision provided clarity on the extent of Barrick Gold's liability and the appropriate legal framework for addressing environmental breaches in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established