Bloomfield v Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd - [2005] WADC 113

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BLOOMFIELD -v- LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2005] WADC 113

CORAM: COMMISSIONER SCHOOMBEE

HEARD: 2 MAY 2005

DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2005

FILE NO/S: CIVO 174 of 2004

MATTER :IN THE MATTER of an application by Eric Wayne Bloomfield for leave to commence action against Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd in the matter of s 93D(4) and (5)(c) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended)

BETWEEN: ERIC WAYNE BLOOMFIELD
Plaintiff
AND
LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Review of taxation - O 66 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court - Jurisdiction to set aside certificate of taxation - Incidental jurisdiction of District Court - Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004, s 7 - Construction of "former provisions matters" - Appeal from Registrar's refusal to grant leave to commence common law proceedings to Judge in chambers - Whether former provisions matter - Construction of "determined" - Whether application for leave to proceed with common law proceedings "determined" - Whether a nullity - Whether costs order made deemed to be no order as to costs - Certificate of taxation signed by Registrar without jurisdiction

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969, s 6, s 55

Interpretation Act 1984, s 37(2)
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Act 1999
Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004, s 5, s 7(1), s 7(3)

Rules of the Supreme Court (1971), O 66 r 55(1), O 66 r 55(2)

Result:

Review of certificate of taxation allowed
Certificate set aside

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M E Herron
Defendant: Mr M J Civitella

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Chris Phillips
Defendant: Crisp Civitella Smith

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

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1
Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 339
Bull v Attorney‑General for New South Wales (1913) 17 CLR 370
Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia (1982) 150 CLR 49
Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 202 ALR 428
Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1
Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Hewitt v Lewis [1986] 1 WLR 444
Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96
Maccarron v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd t/as Coles Supermarkets & Ors [2001] WASCA 61
Mossensons (A Firm) v Coastline Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970661; 2 December 1997
Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey and Ors (2001) 25 WAR 209
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435
Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253
Schweppes' Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178
Thorne v Thorne (1979) 1 WLR 659
Transfield Pty Ltd v Rawstron [2005] WASCA 78

Case(s) also cited:

Farmer v AOC Australia Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 340
Henderson v WMC…

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 Bloomfield v Liebherr-Australia 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: [2005] WADC 113
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of New South Wales, the case of Bloomfield v Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the court to set aside a certificate of taxation. The plaintiff sought to commence common law proceedings for workers' compensation against the defendant. The Registrar had refused the plaintiff's application for leave to proceed with the common law action, leading to an appeal against this decision. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the District Court had the incidental jurisdiction to set aside the certificate of taxation, and if the application for leave to proceed was a "former provisions matter" under the Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that the Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004 did not provide the District Court with the jurisdiction to set aside a certificate of taxation. It was determined that the application for leave to proceed with common law proceedings was not a "former provisions matter" as it related to a new application rather than a continuation of an existing proceeding. Consequently, the Registrar's refusal to grant leave did not constitute a "determination" of the application under the Act. The court further held that the Registrar's signing of the certificate of taxation without jurisdiction rendered the certificate a nullity, and the costs order made was deemed to be no order as to costs.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the certificate of taxation, and remitted the matter to the Registrar to consider the application for leave to proceed with the common law action. The District Court's decision clarified the jurisdictional limits regarding the setting aside of certificates of taxation and the interpretation of "former provisions matters" under the relevant legislation.

Orders