Breaching Of Contract Laws
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor
Course
Date
City/State
HENRY WALKER CONTRACTING PTY LTD-V-FARNWORTH (2002) WASCA167.DATE; APRIL 24TH 2002
In the case, the plaintiff was the workers, and the defendant, who later is the appellant, is the Henry walker contracting limited and owners.
The case involved a breach of contract, which went against the Mines Inspection and safety Act of 1994 in the Australian government regulation concerning mining activities. The appellant, who was the contracting company, was charged with the failure to provide and maintain a safe working place for the workers who worked in the mines that were legally owned and termed as the contracting company’s property.
According to the Mines Inspection and safety Act of 1994, it is required that a mining company, in its duties, has to maintain a healthy environment that the workers can thrive well while their safety is maintained. The mining company has to take caution to ensure that their works are not exposed to hazards. Any foreseeable dangers that will occur may lead to suing the company for breach of contract. In the Contracting Company PTY LTD case, a conveyer belt was broken, and the company never paid attention to the same. One day while the workers were in their activities,
The conveyer belt dislodged and went on swiping to workers who were stood nearby, thus injuring them. According to the workers, the statement was that if the alternative use of belt clamps would have facilitated the evasion of such a danger, but the company never paid attention to the same (Harrison, Pg.326). The company was the threat was foreseeable, and the work safety instructions, if compiled, would have stopped such an incident.
The Mining Company was found guilty after a case was filed to the court by the injured workers.
Acts used in the case
The Acts use in the case include the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, with its subsections 9(1) and 9(7), which states that a company has to keep off any hazards that may cause harm to others on their duties. Occupational Health and Welfare Act of 1984, with subsections 109 and 110 (Chakraborti, pg.256). The Mines and regulations Act of 1946 provided with section 30(B), with its provision similar to those of the Mines Inspection and safety Act of 1994.
Other Cases used
Cases used in the judgment included the following, among many others.
Bunnings Forrest Products Pty Ltd v Shepherd, unreported; FCT Sgt of WA; Library No 980235; 5 May 1998
Cullen v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1989) 31 IR 207
Henry Walker Contracting Pty Ltd v Farnworth [2000] WASCA 253
Instruct Pty Ltd v Wakelam (1990) 3 WAR 100
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Meiklejohn v Central Norsemen Gold Corporation Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 298
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 70 ALJR 884
Adelaide Timber Co Pty Ltd v Shepherd [2001] WASCA 110
Australian Char Pty Ltd (1995) 79 A Crim R 427
Azzopardi v Q [2001] HCA 25Schultz v Tamworth City Council (1995) 58 IR 221
Sydney City Council v Coulson (1987) 21 IR 477
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395
Workcover Authority of NSW v Waugh (1995) 59 IR 89
The amendments made in the Acts or even substitutions included the following in the Mines Safety and Inspection Act of 1994. It alluded that if an appellant was charged with breach of contract and there is no care evidence to satisfy that, then the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
The above additional information was imposed on the Act of 1994 in subsections 9(1) and 9(7), thus the amendments made in the addition of the same.
The case was covering the Act, and it was revolving around the Act too. This event is because of the provisions it had. The Mines Safety and Inspection Act had its speculations because a company must keep away hazardous events away from its workers, thus corresponding to the case in subsections 9(1) and (7). The use of clamps is also aligned in the Act in section 9(i0 (ii). it was stipulated that Act of using clamps was not for arrangements but the maintenance purposes.
The Act provision in both its sections and subsections is not explicit on the cautions that should be taken if, in any case, something like that happens. Thus it needs an amendment to state its purpose and regulations clearly. It is so because some sections compromise the convictions that should be made, for instance, the evidence part and the Act provisional requirements.
The Act is entitled to make the mining places not abandon their workers in poor working conditions. They considered the dangers in mining places; the workers have their rights too as human beings (Australia pg.23). The Act provides that every employer should make an environment healthy for the workers free from any dangers. The Act is therefore essential as it fights for the rights of the workers while on their duties.
References
Australia, W., 1994. Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. Government Printer.
Harrison, S., 2015. Recent Amendments to the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA). Australian Resources & Energy LJ, 24, p.236.
Chakraborti, S., 2018. The Influence of Safety and Health Representatives in the Western Australian Mining Industries (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University).