Home » Personal Injury Quantum Database (Qld) » Logan v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Grant v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Murray v GBR Helicopters & Ors (No. 2)

Logan v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Grant v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Murray v GBR Helicopters & Ors (No. 2)

[2021] QDC 239 · Porter QC DCJ

In plain language

This case arose from a 2011 helicopter crash near Cairns, where a helicopter conducting aerial surveying of weeds flew into power lines, injuring three passengers, Messrs Logan, Murray and Grant, and the pilot. The passengers settled their personal injury claims against the helicopter operator, GBR, under a special aviation liability scheme that makes carriers strictly liable but caps the amount payable. GBR then pursued the electricity company, Ergon, claiming Ergon's negligence in managing the power lines caused the crash. Ergon had earlier admitted in its pleadings that the aviation liability scheme applied, but later sought permission to withdraw that admission, arguing the scheme did not apply because the weed-spotting flight was outside what the helicopter's operating certificate authorised. The judge refused permission, finding Ergon's legal argument was clearly wrong and that allowing the change would risk delaying the trial set for May 2022. Ergon was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Incident & injury

Helicopter conducting aerial surveying of miconia weeds flew into power lines and crashed, injuring the three passengers

Body regions
Multiple regions / generalised
Location
near Cairns, Queensland

Quick facts

Date of judgment
23 September 2021
Claim type
Other
Proceeding
Interlocutory
Plaintiff outcome
N/A
Occupation
Not stated

Outcome

Ergon's application for leave to withdraw an admission of law (that GBR became liable to the passengers under the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) scheme) was dismissed. The Court held Ergon's argument that the scheme did not apply because the weed-spotting flight was outside the scope of the AOC was clearly wrong, making withdrawal futile, and that allowing it risked disrupting the trial dates.

Key issues

  • Leave to withdraw admission under UCPR r 188
  • Admission of law
  • Application of Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) scheme
  • Scope of Air Operator's Certificate authorisation
  • Third party contribution under Law Reform Act 1995 s 6
📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Logan v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Grant v GBR Helicopters & Ors; Murray v GBR Helicopters & Ors (No. 2) [2021] QDC 239

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

About Sean Roche

Sean J. Roche
Director and Principal Solicitor, Roche Legal

Sean is the Director of Roche Legal and leads the firm's Springwood office. He holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Queensland University of Technology and a Bachelor of Business Management from the University of Queensland. Sean was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland in 2016 and in the High Court of Australia in 2018, and holds an unrestricted principal practising certificate. He is a member of the Queensland Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

About Sean Roche →

← Back to the case archive