Legal Research
Cases
Armet v Stephen Browne

Armet v Stephen Browne

Case [2020] WADC 63 15 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ARMET -v- STEPHEN BROWNE [2020] WADC 63
CORAM:   DAVIS DCJ
HEARD:   23 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   15 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1375 of 2019
BETWEEN:   STEPHANE ARMET
Plaintiff

AND

STEPHEN BROWNE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Stay application - Stay sought until outcome of related appeals - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for stay dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	Mr G P Bourhill

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendant	:	Gilchrist Connell

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2019] WASCA 165
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2020] HCASL 94
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33; (1997) 189 CLR 345
Haoma Mining NL v Gibbs [2017] WASCA 173
Henry v Henry [1996] HCA 51; (1996) 185 CLR 571
Hughes Motor Service Pty Ltd v Wang Computer Pty Ltd (1978) 35 FLR 346
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201
Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128
Palmer v CITIC Ltd [2017] WASC 253
Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon [2008] WASC 108
Rayney v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 23
Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 4
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Boots Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 72; (1992) 34 FCR 287
Undershaft (No 1) Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 41; (2009) 175 FCR 150
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509

DAVIS DCJ:

In this action, the plaintiff, Mr Armet, has sued the defendant, his former solicitors, who acted for Mr Armet on his claim for workers' compensation and common law damages against his employer. Mr Armet alleges that the defendant was negligent when applying for an extension of the termination day, the day by which Mr Armet had to make an election to pursue common law damages and have that election registered, pursuant to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act).
The defendant has brought an application for a stay of this action. The basis for the defendant's application is that Mr Armet is involved in a number of different legal proceedings involving his employer, dealing with whether he can pursue his claim for common law damages, and also in relation to his entitlement to workers' compensation for injuries he says he sustained in the course of his employment.
The defendant has submitted that until Mr Armet has finalised all proceedings involving his employer, and determined what, if any, workers' compensation entitlements he has against his employer, it is impossible for this court to determine whether any negligence of the defendant has, or has not, caused any loss…

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 Armet v Stephen Browne

Details

AGLC: Armet v Stephen Browne [2020] WADC 63
Case: [2020] WADC 63
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Armet v Stephen Browne was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought a stay of proceedings in the Supreme Court pending the outcome of related appeals in the Court of Appeal. The defendant, Stephen Browne, opposed the application. The case involved complex issues of professional negligence and damages, with multiple appeals pending.

The legal issue before the court was whether the stay should be granted until the appeals in the Court of Appeal were concluded. The plaintiff argued that a stay was necessary to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and expense, and to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the law. The defendant contended that the appeals did not involve the same facts as the present case and that a stay would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The court considered the precedent set in previous cases, which indicated that a stay should not be granted unless the appeals were likely to have a direct and significant impact on the current proceedings. The court found that the appeals did not involve the same facts and circumstances as the present case, and therefore, were unlikely to have a direct and significant impact. The court also noted that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice if the stay was granted. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a stay.

The court ordered that the proceedings in the Supreme Court would continue, and the plaintiff was required to provide a written undertaking as to costs in the event the Court of Appeal determined that the issues in the present case were materially different from those in the appeals.

Orders