Course Code: LAW2447

Name: Nguyen Le Duc Huy

ID: s3978053
Tutorial Group: none
Online Lecturer:
Tutorial Lecturer:
I. Introduction
This paper is to identify and examine the case of a citation from Kremmer -v- Sandfire
Resources NL [2020] WADC 130. The final decision of the court has inspired arguments.
Commentators have been reacting critically towards the judgement of the case concluded by
Troy DCJ.
II. Identification of legal issue(s)
In this case, the plaintiff, which is Mr. Erin Bernardus Kremer, has sued Sandfire Resources NL
for causing his injury. On 2nd November 2015, the defendant company, Sandfire Resources NL
held a function to commemorate the Melbourne Cup horse race at their DeGrussa Copper and
Gold Mine. On the same day, the plaintiff, Mr. Erin Kremer attended the function, which is
participating in activities attracted a “score” to enable a “winning” and “losing” team to be
identified at the end of the event. The final activity was a relay race at the function. This was a
“tie-breaker” to determine if the geology team or the safety team placed last. Mr. Kremer took
part in this race, as did another employee, Mr Juan Manuel Santos, who worked in the safety
department. Said Mr. Kremer and Mr. Santos approached a left-hand turn in their relay leg, Mr.
Santos tripped Mr. Kremer from behind, causing him stumble and fall to the ground, which
caused his right shoulder and arm injuries.
Mr. Kremer sued Sandfire for failing to provide adequate supervision of attendees at the
function, failing to provide adequate supervision of the relay race and failing to conduct adequate
risk assessment.
The primary problems in this case are "whether the Sandfire owed Mr. Kremer a Duty of Care
(DOC)" and "whether the Sandfire breached the DOC."
III. Critical analysis
I concur with the judge in deciding Sandfire owed Mr. Kremer a Duty of Care. Due to the
employer-employee connection, Sandfire owed Mr. Kremer a Duty of Care and as a result,
Sandfire is also indirectly implicated in Santos’s activities. Also the defendant company did not
have any warnings for the race, despite awaring that there would be foreseeable risks.
There is no official oversight or risk evaluation during the race. Failure to provide information,
keep a secure working atmosphere, or guarantee staff guidance and supervision puts workers in
danger. These dangers can cause significant accidents, whereas falling on the track can cause
moderate to severe injuries. As a result, Sandfire breached its duty of care and violated the
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985(WA) and the Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994(WA). The
defendant company admitted to the claims but argued that Mr. Santos tripped Mr. Kremer.
According to Sandfire, Mr. Kremer fell on his own volition, and witnesses were summoned.
According to the witnesses, Mr. Santos did not bump into Mr. Kremer. It took a few seconds
after Mr. Kremer collapsed for Mr. Santos to notice and turn to see Kremer, and there is no such
thing as Santos laughing at Kremer.
In addition, when going to the hospital for examination, Mr. Kremer lied to doctors that he had
just fallen by accident in order to protect the job of Mr. Santos. The court stated that Mr. Kremer
should instantly notify Mr. Danaley if he truly fell; the most important thing at the time was to
address the injury rather than protecting Mr. Santos’s job. The claims of Mr. Kremer’s alcohol
abuse were equally unconvincing. Sandfire also wrote an explanation about the character of the
race after the game, saying that there was no intense competition.
In summary, the court determined that Sandfire had no reason to pit Mr. Santos against Mr.
Kremer. Because there is insufficient compelling proof of Mr. Santos' actions, I completely
concur with the judge's decision. Sandfire had also decided to accept responsibility for Mr.
Kremer's mishap.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, the judge has successfully and persuasively examined the legal issues and made
the final decision for the allegation of the plaintiff on the defendant.