Off to the High Court: Robinson Helicopters granted special leave

Nov 2015 |

Carter Newell’s May 20141 and March 20152 newsletters canvassed the Queensland Supreme and Court of Appeal decisions in the matter of Graham McDermott & Ors -ats- Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated (RHC).3

Readers will recall:

  • The primary judgement found the RHC was neither negligent nor in breach of the consumer protection provisions set out under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) in regards to periodic inspection procedure instructions set out in the R-22 maintenance manual; and
  • The Court of Appeal overturned the primary judgment finding instead that the RHC maintenance manual did not provide adequate guidance to Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) performing periodic inspections.

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision, RHC filed a Special Leave Application (Application)with the Australian High Court. The Application was heard on 16 October 2015 before Justices Kiefel and Gordon.4

At the Application, Counsel for RHC5 contended the Court of Appeal erred in two respects:

  • Firstly, it overturned important findings of fact made by the trial judge about the absence of a torque stripe without any proper basis to have done so;6 and
  • Secondly, the majority did not consider the evidence presented at trial7 about whether the absence of certain directions in the maintenance manual either directly or indirectly caused the failure which lead to the subject helicopter crash. RHC argued that despite having not considered this evidence, the majority proceeded to make a determination in favour of McDermott in both tort and the TPA.8

Counsel for McDermott9 disputed RHC’s contention that the relationship between the cause of the accident and the absence of certain directions in the maintenance manual was an issue during the Court of Appeal hearing.

Counsel for McDermott argued this matter is one where:

‘specialist and highly trained aircraft mechanics are involved and who regard each aircraft maintenance manual as though it is to be followed to the letter.’10

Despite having followed the maintenance manual to the letter, the maintenance manual lacked the requisite directions to enable the LAMEs to detect the defect that existed in the helicopter and as a result the subject helicopter crash ensued.11

The Court granted RHC’s request for a grant of special leave in this matter with the parties estimating it will be heard (some time in early 2016) by the High Court over the course of two days.12 Carter Newell will continue to monitor developments in relation to this matter and will report further on the outcome of the High Court hearing in due course.

In the meantime, the ongoing litigation of this matter serves to highlight for manufacturers the importance of ensuring all manuals associated with aircraft provide not only clear and concise instructions, but also instructions which accord, where appropriate, with industry practice.

Finally, for those involved in the provision of maintenance services to the aviation industry, this case continues to affirm the importance of following the instructions set out in the maintenance manual without deviation and provides ongoing insight into the court’s expectations of LAMEs involved in the provision of aircraft maintenance services.

----------

1 Carter Newell Aviation Newsletter ‘Robinson’s R-22 Maintenance Manual: No defect, no liability’.
2 Carter Newell Aviation Newsletter ‘When a manufacturer’s product manual is not to standard: Robinson Helicopters’
http://www.carternewell.com/page/Publications/2015/When_a_manufacturer%E2%8099s_product_manual_is_not_to_standard_Robinson_Helicopters/.
3 McDermott & Ors v Robinson Helicopter Company [2014] QSC 34 and McDermott & Ors v Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated [2014] QCA 357.
4 Transcript of proceedings, Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2015] HCATrans 274 [16 October 2015].
5 Mr S.L.Doyle, QC.
6 Transcript of proceedings, Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2015] HCATrans 274 [16 October 2015] [Opening by Doyle, QC].
7 RHC suggested the relevant evidence included: the absence of reliance by the LAMEs on the manual in carrying out the performance of their work; confirmation the LAMEs did not comply with the manual in certain respects; and evidence from the relevant LAMEs that they knew the way to determine whether the bolt was properly torqued was by application of a torque wrench, notwithstanding the absence of a direction to do so in the manual. [C/F: Paragraphs 280, 245, 250, 255, 260].
8 Transcript of proceedings, Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2015] HCATrans 274 [16 October 2015] [Opening by Doyle, QC].
9 Mr W. Sofronoff, QC.
10 Transcript of proceedings, Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v Graham James McDermott & Ors [2015] HCATrans 274 [16 October 2015] [340].
11 Ibid [350].
12 Ibid [715 – 725].