Barnes v Australian Telecommunications Corporation - [1996] QCA 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 001
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 94 of 1995.

Brisbane

[Barnes v. ATC]

BETWEEN:

NEIL PHILLIP BARNES

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION

(Defendant) Applicant

___________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Shepherdson J.

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 02/02/1996

Separate concurring reasons for judgment of each member of the Court
___________________________________________________________________

1.         APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED WITH LEAVE TO THE APPLICANT DEFENDANT TO RENEW THE APPLICATION IF AND WHEN THE ACTION IS DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
2.         THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS STRUCK OUT.
3.         THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT ARE RESERVED.

___________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: DECLARATION - whether trial judgment within the meaning of
s. 92(1) District Courts Act 1967 - whether merely interlocutory
so that leave to appeal is necessary.
Ss. 4, 92 District Courts Act 1967.
Hall v. Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 C.L.R. 423.

LEAVE TO APPEAL - issue of validity of letter by way of notice of election under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) - whether question of law - whether important question of law - whether, if notice of election is invalid, the suit brought is subject to the three year time limitation imposed by s. 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974; whether leave to appeal can be sought on this point when no order made in District Court relating to it.
Ss. 24, 27, 44, 45 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
1988 (Cth)
S.11 Limitation of Actions Act 1994

Counsel:	Mr S Williams Q.C. with him Mr R Dickson for the applicant. Mr C Jensen for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Phillips Fox for the applicant. Gayler Cleland Towne for the respondent.

Hearing date:02/06/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 94 of 1995.

Brisbane

Before

Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Shepherdson J.

[Barnes v. ATC]

BETWEEN:

NEIL PHILLIP BARNES

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION

(Defendant) Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 02/02/1996

The appellant, the defendant in the proceedings below, applies to this Court for a

declaration that its appeal has been properly instituted and alternatively leave to appeal.

The proceedings were begun by plaint issued in the District Court on 6 August 1994

claiming damages for negligence for injuries incurred by the respondent on 8 August 1990

while carrying out instructions in the course of his employment by the appellant as a

linesman.

The issues in the appeal concern the operation of the Safety Rehabilitation and
Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”). Comcare, a body corporate, is established

under the Act to deal with (among other matters) claims by employees of the

Commonwealth in respect of injuries arising out of or in the course of employment. Section

24 makes Comcare liable to pay compensation to an employee whose injury results in a

permanent impairment; however, Comcare is not liable to pay compensation where it

determines the degree of impairment…

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 Barnes v Australian Telecommunications Corporation 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: [1996] QCA 1
Decision Date: 2/02/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Barnes v Australian Telecommunications Corporation, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland was called upon to decide whether the defendant, the Australian Telecommunications Corporation, had the right to appeal a decision made by the District Court. The primary dispute arose from an action brought by Neil Phillip Barnes against the Corporation, claiming damages for negligence after an injury sustained in the course of employment. The appeal focused on the interpretation of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and whether a letter sent by Barnes' solicitors constituted a valid notice of election under the Act.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the District Court's declaration that the letter was a valid notice of election was a final judgment within the meaning of the District Courts Act 1967, and if not, whether leave to appeal should be granted. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the interpretation of the Act involved important questions of law, particularly concerning the time limitation for bringing such actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the declaration by the District Court, while determining a specific point of law, was not a final judgment as it did not dispose of the entire action. The Court concluded that the declaration involved important questions of law, including the interpretation of the statutory requirement for an election in writing and the applicability of a 10% threshold for compensation. However, the Court deemed it inappropriate to grant leave to appeal at that stage due to the procedural complexities and the potential for fragmenting the issues. Instead, the Court adjourned the application for leave to appeal, allowing the Corporation to renew the application if the action was disposed of in the District Court. The notice of appeal was struck out, and the costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal were reserved.

Orders