Cross v Theiss Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1455

Cross v Theiss Pty Ltd & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1455

The plaintiff satisfied the onus under Supreme Court Act 1970 s85(2) because the case raised an unusual issue of conflicting responsibility between the employer's environmental responsibilities in reducing dust from mining operations and the safety of those operations for workers. That issue was a question of fact and degree, not one for which legal skills were particularly apt, and was best resolved by lay jurors applying their experience, judgment, commonsense and community values.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Jury Trial in Personal Injuries Proceedings Arising From an Industrial Accident / Application Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S85(2) Before Trial
Outcome
Jury ordered; matter to be placed in the next list for mention before the Registrar; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['jury Trial' 'interests of Justice' 'industrial Accident' 'environmental Measures and Worker Safety' 'calculus of Negligence']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'employment and Industrial Accidents'] ['jury Trial' 'interests of Justice' 'industrial Accident' 'environmental Measures and Worker Safety' 'calculus of Negligence']

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 Jury Trial in Personal Injuries Proceedings Arising From an Industrial Accident / Application Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S85(2) Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interests of justice required the personal injuries proceedings to be tried by a jury under Supreme Court Act 1970 s85(2).' 'Whether the alleged conflict between measures to reduce dust pollution from mining operations and the safety of workers raised questions suitably determined by a jury applying community values and common sense.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff satisfied the onus under Supreme Court Act 1970 s85(2) because the case raised an unusual issue of conflicting responsibility between the employer's environmental responsibilities in reducing dust from mining operations and the safety of those operations for workers. That issue was a question of fact and degree, not one for which legal skills were particularly apt, and was best resolved by lay jurors applying their experience, judgment, commonsense and community values.

Court Disposition

Jury ordered; matter to be placed in the next list for mention before the Registrar; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are to be tried by a jury.' 'The matter is to be placed in the next list for mention before the Registrar.' 'Costs reserved.']