Belcher v Austal Ships Pty Ltd - [2002] WADC 259

BELCHER -v- AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD [2002] WADC 259

Last Update: 19/12/2002

BELCHER -v- AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD [2002] WADC 259
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WADC 259
Case No:	CIV:2440/2001	Heard:	7 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	COMMISSIONER GILES	Delivered:	18/12/2002
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	DION BELCHER AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Application for stay of proceedings Appeal from Registrar Principles for determining stay application Form 22 notice inadequate
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 Rules of the Supreme Court, O 56 r 11
Case References:	Adams v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [2002] WADC 28 Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd v Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd (1997) 18 WAR 334 Gardner Merchant (Australia) Pty Ltd v Herft [2001] WADC 136 Gluhic v Prok Group Limited [2002] WADC 110 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (No 2) (1998) 20 WAR 79 Hunt v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] WADC 175 Mokta v Metro Meats International Limited, unreported and unpublished; DCt of WA (HH Jackson DCJ) CIV 16/2000; 27 June 2001 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch & Ors (2001) 25 WAR 96 Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253 Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor (2000) 24 SR (WA) 142 CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1969] 2 QB 67 Re Monger; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 129 Starr v National Coal Board [1977] 1 All ER 243

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : BELCHER -v- AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD [2002] WADC 259 CORAM : COMMISSIONER GILES HEARD : 7 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2440 of 2001 BETWEEN : DION BELCHER

Plaintiff

AND

AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for stay of proceedings - Appeal from Registrar - Principles for determining stay application - Form 22 notice inadequate

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Rules of the Supreme Court, O 56 r 11

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms H S Osbourne

Defendant : Ms Y D Henderson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Srdarov Richards

Defendant : Gibson & Gibson

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

Adams v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [2002] WADC 28
Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd v Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd (1997) 18 WAR 334
Gardner Merchant (Australia) Pty Ltd v Herft [2001] WADC 136
Gluhic v Prok Group Limited [2002] WADC 110
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (No 2) (1998) 20 WAR 79
Hunt v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] WADC 175
Mokta v Metro Meats International Limited, unreported and unpublished; DCt of WA (HH Jackson DCJ) CIV 16/2000; 27 June 2001
Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch & Ors (2001) 25 WAR 96
Re Monger;…

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 Belcher v Austal Ships Pty Ltd 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: [2002] WADC 259
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Belcher v Austal Ships Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who suffered injuries at work, and the defendant, his employer. The plaintiff sought a stay of proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The case was initially dismissed by the Registrar, but the plaintiff appealed this decision. The appeal was heard by the Federal Court, which had to determine whether the Registrar's decision was correct and whether the application for a stay was appropriately dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar correctly assessed the plaintiff's application for a stay of proceedings. The plaintiff argued that the application was sufficient, and the court should have granted a stay. The defendant contended that the application was inadequate and that the Registrar's decision to dismiss it was correct. The court had to consider the principles governing stay applications and whether the form 22 notice provided by the plaintiff was sufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The court found that the Registrar correctly dismissed the application for a stay. The form 22 notice submitted by the plaintiff did not adequately address the statutory requirements for such an application. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a stay of proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff's application was inadequate, and the Registrar's decision was justified. The court also noted that the principles for determining stay applications were correctly applied in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.