Baker v Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited - [2020] NSWSC 433

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baker v Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 433
Hearing dates: 21 April 2020
Decision date: 24 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 140(3)(b)(i) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, proceedings number 2017/00363043 issued in the District Court of NSW at Parramatta are transferred to the Supreme Court of NSW at Sydney.
(2) Costs of the proceedings before me are costs in the cause.
Catchwords: CIVIL – PROCEDURE – application for transfer of proceedings from District Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of New South Wales – whether the claim for damages is likely to exceed jurisdictional limit of the District Court – discussion of test and its application – transfer ordered
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 140(3)(b)(i)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 105
Marincic v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 272
Pelka v Woolworths Limited [2016] NSWSC 1312
Tauri v Janlin Circuses Pty Ltd (trading as Stardust Circus) [2017] NSWSC 1337
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shayne Baker (Plaintiff)
Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Adhikary (Plaintiff)
J Sleight (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
Thompson Cooper Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/00363043

Judgment

Introduction

This application for transfer from the District Court of New South Wales to this Court brought by Mr Shayne Baker (the plaintiff) pursuant to s 140(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the CPA) is resisted by Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Ltd (the defendant). It came before me three days ago, and for reasons that appear below it is imperative that it be resolved urgently; this judgment is very concise as a result.

Background

In a nutshell, the allegation of the plaintiff is that he was working pursuant to a labour hire agreement entered into with a separate entity at a site under the control of the defendant. He went to open a shed door that was, he alleges, “live” with electricity. He was knocked unconscious, thrown to the floor, and alleges that he has suffered ongoing physical and psychological injuries as a result.
The claim against the defendant is accordingly brought pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and not the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). It features claims for non-economic loss, past and future out-of-pocket expenses, past economic loss and past loss of superannuation, future economic loss and future loss of superannuation, and past and future domestic assistance.
The simple basis for the application is that his claim is now in the sum of $1.5 million, exactly double the jurisdictional limit of the District Court that the parties agreed before me applies in a claim of this kind. The plaintiff simply asserts, to use the language of the section, that the amount that he is to be awarded, if he is successful, “is likely to exceed the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 433
Decision Date: 24 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in Baker v Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited were initiated in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Baker, sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentations by the defendant, Pro Strip (Aust) Pty Limited. The dispute centred on the amount of damages Baker claimed, which appeared to potentially exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Baker applied to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court, which has an unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the claim for damages was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, which is currently set at $750,000. The court considered the applicable legal test, which requires a determination of whether the plaintiff's claim is likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit based on the evidence available at the time of the application. The court assessed the strength of the evidence presented and the likelihood of the claim exceeding the jurisdictional limit if the case proceeded in the District Court.

The court concluded that the evidence indicated a strong likelihood that the damages claimed would exceed the District Court's jurisdictional limit. It found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support this likelihood, including expert opinions and detailed financial calculations. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court, which has the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case in its entirety. The decision was based on a balance of convenience, the need for finality, and the availability of an appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute. The application for transfer was therefore granted.

In summary, the court ordered the transfer of the proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court, recognising the potential for the claim to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the former. The decision underscores the importance of carefully considering jurisdictional issues at the outset of litigation, particularly when the amount of damages claimed is uncertain or potentially substantial.

Orders