FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
Matter No S27/2010
DAVID COLIN WICKS APPELLANT
AND
STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES KNOWN AS STATE RAIL RESPONDENT
Matter No S28/2010
PHILIP KEVIN SHEEHAN APPELLANT
AND
STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES KNOWN AS STATE RAIL RESPONDENT
Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales Sheehan v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2010] HCA 22 16 June 2010 S27/2010 & S28/2010
ORDER
In each matter order that:
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2.Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 31 August 2009.
3.Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in accordance with the reasons of this Court.
4.The costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal to date, and the costs of the further proceedings in that Court, be in the discretion of that Court.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Representation
B J Gross QC with K O Earl for the appellant in both matters (instructed by Baker & Edmunds)
J T Gleeson SC with P M Morris and B A Arste for the respondent in both matters (instructed by DLA Phillips Fox Lawyers)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales Sheehan v State Rail Authority of New South Wales
Negligence – Duty of care – Personal injuries – Psychological and psychiatric injuries – Train derailment – Passengers killed and injured – Police officers who attended scene sued railway operator in negligence for psychological and psychiatric injuries – Whether police officers "witnessed, at the scene, [one or more persons] being killed, injured or put in peril" by railway operator.
Words and phrases – "another person", "being killed, injured or put in peril", "foreseeability", "mental or nervous shock", "recognised psychiatric illness", "shocking event", "sudden shock", "victim", "witnessed at the scene".
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ. At about 7.14 am on 31 January 2003, a passenger train operated by "State Rail"[1] left the tracks at high speed near Waterfall Station, south of Sydney. Seven of the almost 50 people on the train died. Many others were injured, some very seriously. All four carriages of the train were very badly damaged.
[1]State Rail Authority of New South Wales, the party named as the respondent to each appeal, is said, in some of the papers in the appeal books in this Court, to be the successor to a corporation (Rail Corporation New South Wales known as Railcorp) that operated the train. Nothing was said to turn on any question of succession and the question need not be explored in these reasons. It is convenient to refer to the respondent to each appeal as "State…
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 Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) [2010] HCA 22
Case
[2010] HCA 22
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Mr Wicks against the State Rail Authority (NSW) concerning a claim for pure mental harm. Mr Wicks, a train driver, was not present at the scene of an initial accident where a person was killed. However, he arrived shortly thereafter and witnessed the aftermath, suffering psychiatric injury as a result. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Wicks could recover damages for this mental harm under the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).
The High Court was required to determine whether the provisions of Part 3 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), which govern liability for pure mental harm, applied to Mr Wicks' situation. Specifically, the Court had to interpret the meaning of the phrase "the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in peril." The key legal question was whether a rescuer, who arrives at the scene after the initial event and suffers pure mental harm as a consequence of witnessing the aftermath, could establish a duty of care owed by the defendant. This also involved considering whether the defendant's breach of duty was still causing a continuing peril to potential primary victims.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The Court remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in accordance with the High Court's reasons. The costs of the proceedings in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were to be determined by the Court of Appeal. The High Court's reasoning, which is not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the initial determination by the Court of Appeal was incorrect and required re-examination.
Orders
Orders of the court
In each matter order that:
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 31 August 2009.
3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in accordance with the reasons of this Court.
4. The costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal to date, and the costs of the further proceedings in that Court, be in the discretion of that Court.
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
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ