Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd v Baggs [2013] NSWCA 427 Hearing dates: 12 August 2013 Decision date: 11 December 2013 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [10];
Sackville AJA at [42]Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Set aside the order made by Marks ADCJ on 2 November 2012.
(4) Order that the question whether the respondent was at the time of his accident on 12 July 2010 a "coal miner" for the purpose of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 be answered in the negative.
(5) Order that the respondent pay the applicant/appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION - coal miners - interpretation of Workers Compensation Act 1987, Sch 6 Pt 18 Cl 3(4) - respondent, who was employed by a supplier of mining equipment, injured in motor vehicle accident while travelling to coal mine to instruct miners in use of equipment - whether, at time of injury, respondent a worker employed "in or about a mine" Legislation Cited: Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002
Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982, s 5
Evidence Act 1995, s 144
Mining Act 1898 (Qld), s 218
Workers Compensation Act 1897 (UK), ss 1, 5
Workers Compensation Act 1926, ss 11, 15
Workers Compensation Act 1987, Sch 6 Pt 18 Cl 3, ss 3, 10, 11, 35, 150A, 151E-151IA, 151U, 282
Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2001 (No 61)
Workers Compensation Legislation Further Amendment Act 2001 (No 94)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998Cases Cited: Atkinson v Lumb [1903] 1 KB 861
Back v Dick Kerr & Co Ltd [1906] AC 325
Chambers v Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners [1899] 2 QB 132
Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41; 303 ALR 1
Ellavale Engineering Pty Ltd v Pilgrim [2005] NSWCA 272; 2 DDCR 744
Griffin v The Houlder Line, Ltd [1904] 1 KB 510
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21; 173 CLR 473
Owens v Campbell [1904] 2 KB 60
Powell v Brown [1899] 1 QB 157
R v Neil; Ex parte Cinema International Corporation Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 11; 134 CLR 27
Taylor v The Cecil Syndicate, Ltd [1906] St R Qd 324Category: Principal judgment Parties: Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Mark Wayne Baggs (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
I Roberts SC, S Lowe (Applicant)
J Sexton SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Moray & Agnew (Applicant)
Lee Sames Egan (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2012/371734 Decision under appeal
- Jurisdiction:
- 9101
- Date of Decision:
- 2012-11-02 00:00:00
Continue reading Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd v Baggs
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd v Baggs [2013] NSWCA 427
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 427
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent's employment activities at the time of the accident brought him within the scope of the definition of a coal miner as contemplated by Schedule 6, Part 18, Clause 3(4) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*. This clause specifically addresses the application of certain provisions to coal miners. The court was required to determine if Mr. Baggs' role as an equipment instructor, travelling to a mine site, qualified him as a worker employed "in or about a mine" for the purposes of the relevant workers compensation legislation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order. Their Honours reasoned that the respondent's employment was with a supplier of mining equipment, not directly with the mine operator. Furthermore, his presence at the mine was for the specific purpose of providing instruction on equipment, rather than engaging in the core activities of coal mining itself. The court concluded that, at the time of the accident, the respondent was not a "coal miner" for the purposes of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* and the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998*. Consequently, the court ordered that the question be answered in the negative and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Set aside the order made by Marks ADCJ on 2 November 2012.
(4) Order that the question whether the respondent was at the time of his accident on 12 July 2010 a "coal miner" for the purpose of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 be answered in the negative.
(5) Order that the respondent pay the applicant/appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.