IN. THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA P.J. MURPHY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Oral Judgment delivered at..... SY QNCY. eevee on luesday 6th April 1971 P.J. MURPHY ve HUNTLEY COLLIERY Pry. LfD. ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs. P.J. MURPHY ve HUNTLEY COLLIERY Pry. L&D. (ORAL) HUNDLEY COLLIERY pry, it Suoreme The appellant sued the respondent in Court of New South Wales in three counts, one for what may be celled common law negligence and two for breach of statutory duty, namely, the breach of certain rules made under th es Regulation Act 1912. The action was heard by a judg jury. The learned trial judge was of the opinion that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find either a breach of the employer's duty to the appellant as its servant, or of some fellow workman's duty towards the appellant, for whict respondent could be liable. He was also of the opinion that neither of the rules to which the second and third count to return a verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the Court of Appeal division was of the opinion that the trial judge was no in error in the course he took or in the reasons it. The facts are simple: the appellant claims to slipped on a patch of oil over which he had placed some, bud he then accente fs apparently insufficient, coal dust, that being @ PP J > ? = method of removing the hazard of slipoing on oil spilled on th be @ roadway in amine. The oil had emitted from a fra @ hose in a hydraulic system on a shuttle car, at the relevant time at the side of pellant, a fitter, was instructed inches outside the ¢ where he would need evidently to his satisfactio: available. He says that whils the noise of the working of the serious injury to himself, The trial conclusion that neither tion Act were applicable to car or to the Leakage of oil from the hose connected to it. re, there was no, need to consider whether or not the particular rules were intended to give rise to causes of action such as the plaintiff sought to base upon Further, in my opinion, ng the first count from the breach of the employer's fellow workman I a not support a verdict for doubt if there was any evidence Further, insufficiently deali broke that rele B [e} RSB B fe} B ct py coy KR coy fey BR Q ck ¢ oO Q fe} B ch [oy proper HUNTLEY COLL I agree that the Court of Appeal conclusion as to each count of the declarat ra JUDGMENT (ORAL). HUNTLEY COLLIERIES PTY. LIMITED & i) iH wey Cy P.J. MURPHY ve ' HUNTLEY COLLIERIES PTY, LIMITED I agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice. MURPHY v. TLEY COLLIERY PLY. LIMITED JUDGMENT WINDEYER J. (ORAL) MURPHY ve HUNTLEY COLLIERY PLY. LIMITED | | | | i I also agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice. { | * " | | MURPHY i Ve HUNTLEY COLLIERY PY, LIMI'WED JUDGMENT OWEN J. (ORAL). MURPHY ve HUNTLEY COLLIERY PLY. LIMITED I agree with the Chief Justice.