McPHERSON JA: The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court to an application for leave to appeal from the District Court, originally applied in the Magistrates Court for an order under s.31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 extending the time within which to bring proceedings. The proceedings he wished to bring were to recover damages for industrial deafness which he alleged he had sustained in the course of his employment with the defendant in what was admittedly a noisy environment.
The Magistrate refused the application. In doing so he found the plaintiff in the application before him to have been "a less than forthright witness", and he expressly preferred the evidence of the defendant's witnesses where, in relation to what had happened, it differed from that of the plaintiff. It is not, in my view, necessary here to condescend to the details of that evidence on the facts generally, which are matters more appropriately for submission upon the appeal if any is permitted in this case.
The plaintiff then successfully appealed to the District Court, where the appeal was allowed and the time was extended by the learned District Court Judge. That appeal to the District Court was undertaken pursuant to s.45(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1921. That provision, at any rate where the amount involved in the action is more than $5,000, as it is here, provides what I will, for convenience, call an open-ended appeal. It is an appeal of that description in the sense that it is available as of right. It is, however, governed by the general law that regulates appeals in the ordinary way as it has been ever since the introduction of the Judicature Act procedure with respect to such appeals.
From the decision that follows under that section, there is then, pursuant to s.118 of the District Court Act 1967, the possibility of a further appeal to this Court. Unlike the appeal from the Magistrates Court, however, that appeal to this Court is not an appeal as of right but one that may proceed only by leave of this Court, which, because the matter of that leave is discretionary, is predicated on first obtaining the exercise of that discretion in favour of the application for leave to appeal.
Until some time ago, the discretion under s.118 was exercisable only if the applicant established that the appeal involved an important point of law or some question of general or public importance. The need to satisfy that requirement was deliberately omitted by an amendment to s.118(3) that was effected to the Act in mid-1997. It had the consequence of conferring a general discretion on this Court to grant or refuse leave to appeal, which is exercisable according to the nature of the case. I…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden [2002] QCA 286
Case
[2002] QCA 286
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to bring proceedings against the defendant for damages for industrial deafness allegedly sustained during his employment with the defendant. The application was initially refused by the Magistrate, but the plaintiff successfully appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and extended the time for bringing the proceedings. The defendant then applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether the District Court had erred in its approach to the credibility of the plaintiff’s evidence.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the appeal from the Magistrate's decision. The Court had to determine if the District Court had properly considered the Magistrate's findings on the credibility of the witnesses and whether the District Court's approach to those findings was consistent with established principles of appellate review. Specifically, the Court had to examine whether the District Court had sufficiently addressed the credibility findings made by the Magistrate and whether it had applied the correct principles in evaluating the evidence presented.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court had not appropriately considered the Magistrate's findings on the plaintiff's credibility. The Court found that the District Court appeared to have disregarded the Magistrate's assessment of the plaintiff as "a less than forthright witness" and had implicitly rejected the defendant's witnesses' evidence without sufficient justification. The Court also noted that the District Court had not followed the approach it had set out in its reasoning, which required the Magistrate to be satisfied that the plaintiff was unaware of the extent of his hearing impairment and had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the facts. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision appeared to involve an unexplained rejection of the defendant's evidence and an acceptance of the plaintiff's evidence, contrary to the Magistrate's findings.
The Court of Appeal granted leave for the defendant to appeal against the District Court's decision, on the condition that the defendant would bear its own costs of the application and the appeal, regardless of the outcome. Additionally, the Court extended the time for the defendant to file its notice of appeal.