Benton v QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read


Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Benton v QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWCA 101

Hearing Date(s): 

7 April 2015

Date of Orders:

17 April 2015

Decision Date: 

17 April 2015

Before: 

Meagher JA at [1];
Ward JA at [15];
Adamson J at [90]

Decision: 

1.Leave to appeal is refused.
2.Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – discretionary interlocutory decision – summary dismissal for abuse of process – whether primary judge erred in approaching test for summary dismissal – whether primary judge misapprehended nature of application – whether pleading raised issues different from those determined in prior proceedings

Legislation Cited: 

District Court Act 1973 (NSW) s 127
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4, 14.28
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 151D, 151Z

Cases Cited: 

AB v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 243
Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 217 CLR 424
Benton v Scott’s Refrigerated Freightways [2008] NSWCA 143
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697
Calyon v Michailaidis [2009] UKPC 34
Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd t/as Bennetts Green Bowl [1995] NSWCA 69
Charafeddine v Morgan [2013] NSWDC 7
Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186
Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2014] NSWCA 288
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
Liao v New South Wales; Zhang v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 71
Macatangay v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274
Pinson v Lloyds and National Provincial Foreign Bank Limited [1941] 2 KB 72
R v O’Halloran [2000] NSWCCA 528; 159 FLR 260
Reichel v McGrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665
Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 142; (2001) 53 NSWLR 198
Secretary of State For Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Cov 321; [2004] Ch 1
Shanmugaratnam v Strasburger Enterprises (Properties) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 229
Shaw v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
State Bank of New South Wales v Stenhouse Ltd [1997] Aust Tort Rep 81-423
Tiufino v Warland [2000] NSWCA 110; (2000) 50 NSWLR 104
Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 174
Webster v Lampard [1993] HCA 57; (1993) 177 CLR 598
Williams v Director General of the National Parks & Wildlife Services [2002] NSWCA 176
Young v Hones (No…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Benton v QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) 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
[2015] NSWCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Benton, sought leave to appeal from a discretionary interlocutory decision of the primary judge who had summarily dismissed the applicant's claim for an alleged abuse of process. The respondent was QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd. The appeal concerned whether the primary judge had erred in their approach to the test for summary dismissal and whether the primary judge had misapprehended the nature of the application before them, particularly in relation to whether the applicant's pleading raised issues distinct from those previously determined in earlier proceedings.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had applied the correct legal test for summary dismissal in circumstances where the applicant alleged abuse of process. This involved considering whether the primary judge had correctly assessed whether the applicant's claim was so lacking in merit or so vexatious as to warrant dismissal without a full hearing, and whether the issues raised in the current pleading were genuinely different from those that had been the subject of prior litigation between the parties.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in their approach to the test for summary dismissal. Their Honour had correctly identified the relevant principles and applied them to the facts before the court. The Court concluded that the applicant's pleading did not raise new issues but rather sought to re-litigate matters that had already been determined. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Leave to appeal is refused.

2.Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

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.