Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] WASCA 210
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WADC 90
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 113
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 23
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21
Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 36
Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WADC 78
Barkla v WorkCover WA [2014] WADC 159
Barkla v WorkCover WA [2014] WASCA 40
Bebonis v Angelos (2003) 56 NSWLR 127
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; (2008) 82 ALJR 1221
Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76
Commercial Developments Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Workers' Compensation) Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 208
Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (a firm) [2006] WASC 24
Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4; (2013) 249 CLR 92
Peruvian Guano Company v Bockwoldt (1883) 23 Ch D 225
Sinclair v Bickford [2011] WACC C5-2011
SMEC Australia Pty Ltd v Valentine Falls Estate Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 138
Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd [No 6] [2004] FCA 1699

DAVIS DCJ: On 12 May 2015 Mr Barkla, the plaintiff in this action, filed a writ of summons against Mr Civitella, the defendant.
This action is one of a long list of proceedings commenced by Mr Barkla, who is self-represented, arising from Mr Barkla's workers' compensation claim against his employer and his construction of s 57A(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WCIMA).
Mr Civitella represented the employer, G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd, and its insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd, in a number of workers' compensation proceedings, appeals and other actions brought by Mr Barkla against his employer and Allianz, all of which have been unsuccessful.
Mr Civitella has applied for orders that the whole of the indorsement of claim in the writ be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), r 19(1)(b), r 19(1)(c) and r 19(1)(d) of Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (RSC) and for summary judgment against Mr Barkla pursuant to RSC O 16 r…

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 Barkla v Civitella

Details

AGLC: Barkla v Civitella [2016] WADC 3
Case: [2016] WADC 3
Decision Date: 20 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Barkla versus Civitella, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the defendant, Civitella, was entitled to summary judgment in a dispute involving the indorsement of a claim. The plaintiff, Barkla, had originally filed a claim against Civitella, asserting certain contractual obligations had been breached. Civitella, in turn, filed an application for summary judgment and also sought to strike out the indorsement of the claim on the basis that it contained facts that were not substantiated by evidence or were irrelevant to the proceedings.

The court was required to examine whether the indorsement of the claim presented facts that, if accepted as true, were sufficient to defeat Civitella's application for summary judgment. It was also necessary to determine if the indorsement contained extraneous or irrelevant information that could be struck out under the applicable rules of procedure. The court had to balance the need to ensure that the proceedings were not bogged down by irrelevant or unsubstantiated facts, with the principle that all relevant facts should be considered unless they were clearly extraneous.

The court ultimately held that the indorsement contained facts that, if accepted as true, were sufficient to defeat the application for summary judgment. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court also found that certain portions of the indorsement were extraneous and not pertinent to the resolution of the dispute. These parts were struck out, streamlining the case for further proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the indorsement of a claim is precise and contains only facts that are relevant and substantiated by evidence.

Orders