Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Agrigrain Pty Ltd v Rindfleish [2024] NSWCA 295 Hearing dates: 17 June 2024 Date of orders: 09 December 2024 Decision date: 09 December 2024 Before: Ward P at [1];
Kirk JA at [2];
Stern JA at [134]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – Contract terms – Which of two entities in same corporate group is true employer of respondent – What reasonable person in position of all persons potentially party to contract would understand as to which entity was party as employer – Post-contract conduct relevant where contract unwritten – Factors still relevant in employee/independent contractor characterisation context may shed some light on issue – Question of control and direction significant though not definitive
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Admission contrary to subsequent argument not withdrawn – Pleadings and particulars define issues for decision – Primary judge entitled to determine issue based on admission
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – Discoverability – Personal injury – Knowledge of fault of defendant – When plaintiff “ought to know” facts – No requirement that plaintiff knows capacity in which putative defendant might be liable – Reasonable steps to be taken by plaintiff, not plaintiff’s lawyers – Lawyers’ omissions not to rebound on plaintiff where he had taken all reasonable steps
NEGLIGENCE – Damages – Non-economic loss, future economic loss for loss of earning capacity, future out-of-pocket expenses, past gratuitous domestic assistance
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 16(1)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), Pt 2, Div 6
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.18(1)(e)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 2A, Pt 5
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4(1), 250(2)
Cases Cited: Baggs v University of Sydney Union [2013] NSWCA 451
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1; (2022) 275 CLR 165
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; (2004) 218 CLR 471
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89
Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; (2019) 266 CLR 129
Murgolo v AAI Ltd [2019] NSWCA 295
Pitcher v Langford (1991) 23 NSWLR 142
Ramsey v Denton [2021] NSWCA 310; (2021) 98 MVR 340
Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham [2022] HCA 39; (2022) 277 CLR 115
Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet [2023] NSWCA 118; (2023) 111 NSWLR 446
Russell v J Hargreaves & Sons Pty Ltd (1956) 30 ALJR 533
Shaw v Bindaree Beef Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 125
Sinclair v Balanian [2024] NSWCA 144; (2024) 114 NSWLR 248
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1; (1986) 160 CLR 16
Synergy Scaffolding Services Pty Ltd v Alelaimat [2023] NSWCA 213;
Continue reading Agrigrain Pty Ltd v Rindfleish
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Agrigrain Pty Ltd v Rindfleish [2024] NSWCA 295
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 295
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine, firstly, which of the two corporate entities was the respondent's employer, considering what a reasonable person in the position of all parties to the contract would have understood. Secondly, the Court considered whether post-contractual conduct was relevant to this determination, particularly where the contract was unwritten. Thirdly, the Court addressed the issue of discoverability for the purposes of limitation periods in personal injury claims, specifically when a plaintiff "ought to know" the facts constituting fault, and whether this knowledge extended to understanding the capacity in which a putative defendant might be liable. Finally, the Court considered the assessment of damages for non-economic loss, future economic loss, future out-of-pocket expenses, and past gratuitous domestic assistance.
The Court held that the primary judge was entitled to determine the issue of employment based on an admission made in the pleadings, which had not been withdrawn. The Court found that post-contractual conduct could be relevant to understanding the terms of an unwritten contract, and that factors relevant to the employee/independent contractor characterisation, such as control and direction, could shed light on the employer identification issue. Regarding limitations, the Court clarified that a plaintiff "ought to know" the facts constituting fault when they have taken reasonable steps to ascertain them, and that this knowledge does not require awareness of the specific capacity in which a defendant might be liable. The omissions of a plaintiff's lawyers would not prejudice the plaintiff if the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.