Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd v Baggs [2013] NSWCA 427

Waratah Engineering Pty Ltd v Baggs [2013] NSWCA 427

By majority, Mr Baggs was not a "coal miner" at the time of the accident. Although he was travelling in the course of his employment to perform work connected with the Pike River mine, he had not commenced any activity or duty at the mine or as part of the mining operation, and he was not in or about the mine or in sufficient physical proximity to it when injured. The separate question should therefore be answered in the negative.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in Workers Compensation/common Law Damages Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Determination of a Separate Question
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court order set aside; separate question answered in the negative; respondent ordered to pay the applicant/appellant's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['coal Miners' 'workers Employed in or About a Mine' 'journey Injuries' 'common Law Work Injury Damages' '2001 Amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987']
['workers Compensation' 'employment Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['coal Miners' 'workers Employed in or About a Mine' 'journey Injuries' 'common Law Work Injury Damages' '2001 Amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in Workers Compensation/common Law Damages Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Determination of a Separate Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was, at the time of his motor vehicle 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.' 'Whether, at the time of the accident while travelling to the Pike River coal mine, the respondent was a worker employed "in or about" a mine within Sch 6 Pt 18 cl 3(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, Mr Baggs was not a "coal miner" at the time of the accident. Although he was travelling in the course of his employment to perform work connected with the Pike River mine, he had not commenced any activity or duty at the mine or as part of the mining operation, and he was not in or about the mine or in sufficient physical proximity to it when injured. The separate question should therefore be answered in the negative.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court order set aside; separate question answered in the negative; respondent ordered to pay the applicant/appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the order made by Marks ADCJ on 2 November 2012.' '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...