In Ticehurst v Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWDC 248, the District Court of New South Wales awarded a coal mine haul truck operator damages exceeding $1.3 million after findings his employer had failed to provide a safe system of work.
The decision considers an employer’s obligations to proactively manage known workplace hazards in mining environment and reinforces that employers cannot discharge their duty of care by leaving safety decisions entirely to individual workers, particularly where production pressures discourage workers from stopping unsafe work.
Background
The plaintiff was employed as a haul truck operator at the Wilpinjong Mine. On 8 December 2021, following wet weather, he was required to operate a large haul truck over deteriorated haul roads and through a rough dumping area. He alleged that repeated severe jolting caused the suspension seat to “bottom out”, resulting in injury to his cervical spine.
The plaintiff gave evidence that he requested road grading but was told he would be placed “on the dance card”, meaning he would have to wait until a grader become available. He continued working because this was consistent with the workplace practice of driving to the prevailing conditions while awaiting road maintenance.
Medical investigations later confirmed cervical pathology requiring multiple spinal operations, including a cervical foraminotomy followed by cervical fusion.
Liability
The employer admitted that it owed the plaintiff a duty of care but denied breach, causation and foreseeability.
After hearing evidence from the plaintiff, former co-workers, supervisors and expert evidence, the Court accepted the following
- Haul roads could deteriorate rapidly, particularly after rain;
- Rough road conditions created a foreseeability risk of significant jolting injuries;
- The employer knew road conditions changed throughout a shift;
- The plaintiff had requested a grade before the incident but none was immediately available;
- Operators were expected to continue production by driving to the conditions unless directed otherwise; and
- Production expectations and performance monitoring created practical disincentives to ceasing work.
The court found the employer’s written procedures did not clearly authorise operators to independently stop work when roads became unsafe. Instead, they required workers to exercise their own judgement while continuing production, exposing them to potential performance management if productivity targets were not met.
The court held that a reasonable system of work required more than simply instructing operators to “drive to conditions”. It required proactive inspection of haul roads, timely grading, removal of hazards and active intervention by supervisors where conditions deteriorated.
Expert engineering evidence supported the conclusion that large rocks and rough road surfaces presented an unreasonable risk of musculoskeletal injury, and that appropriate inspection, maintenance and hazard management would have materially reduced that risk.
The court also drew an adverse inference against the employer for failing to call evidence from the production manager, who was expected to have knowledge of the road condition where the incident occurred.
Contributory Negligence
The employer argued that the plaintiff should have stopped operating his truck and alleged contributory negligence.
The Court rejected that submission, finding the employer’s own procedures were inconsistent with that argument. Evidence established that the workers were expected to continue operating while awaiting maintenance and that stopping work exposed operators to the risk of criticism or performance management. In those circumstances, no deduction for contributory negligence was made.
Damages
The court accepted that the workplace incident materially contributed to the plaintiff’s cervical spine injury, which resulted in chronic pain, permanent functional impairment and an inability to return to heavy manual work.
The plaintiff had undergone multiple spinal surgeries and continued to experience significant restrictions almost effecting all aspects of his daily living.
Damages were awarded for:
- non-economic loss;
- past and future economic loss;
- superannuation;
- past and future domestic assistance;
- past and future medical expenses; and
- Fox v Wood damages.
Judgment was entered for $1,315,823.38, together with costs in the plaintiff’s favour. The Court granted the defendant a 28-day stay to enable an appeal to be commenced and reserved the question of interest.
Significance
The decision is an important reminder that employers in high-risk industries such as mining must do more than implement written safety procedures. A safe system of work must be actively maintained and enforced. Where hazards are foreseeable, employers must take proactive steps to identify and manage those risks rather than relying on individual workers to determine when conditions have become unsafe.
The judgment also highlights that workplace production pressures and performance expectations are relevant when assessing whether an employee acted reasonably and whether contributory negligence should be found.
This case can be read in full here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19f5eb520cc6a365a16d35c4
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.