Brighton Ceiling Pty Ltd v Pocrnja - [2005] NSWCA 175

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Brighton Ceiling Pty Ltd v Pocrnja & Ors [2005] NSWCA 175

FILE NUMBER(S):
40525/04

HEARING DATE(S): 18 May 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/05/2005

PARTIES:
Brighton Ceiling Pty Ltd - Claimant/Appellant
Mikan Pocrnja - First Opponent/First Respondent
Alan Ghialis - Second Opponent/Second Respondent
State Transit Authority of NSW - Third Opponent/Third Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA Santow J McClellan AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 947/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: HughesDCJ

COUNSEL:
L King SC & M Jenkins - Claimant/Appellant
L Morris QC & A Black - First to Third Opponents/Respondents

SOLICITORS:
Turks Legal - Claimant/Appellant
Holman Webb - First to Third Opponents/Respondents

CATCHWORDS:
Employer's claim for indemnity for worker's compensation benefits paid to worker injured by negligence of third party - s151Z Workers Compensation Act - ceiling of amount of damages worker could have recovered from third party - claim to $104,000 - arbitrator found damages $240,000 - component of non-economic loss of $46,000 - order for limited rehearing in District Court as to that component - could not affect result in employer's claim - hypothetical question - judge should have declined to entertain it.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Claimant directed to file a notice of appeal within fourteen days. Appeal allowed. In lieu of the order, if any made by Hughes DCJ, the award of the arbitrator be reinstated without modification. Costs order made by Hughes DCJ set aside. No orders for costs either before Hughes DCJ or at the appellate level, to the intent that each side will pay its and their own costs at both stages.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40525/04
DC 947/03
GILES JA
SANTOW JA
McCLELLAN AJA
Wednesday 18 May 2005

BRIGHTON CEILING PTY LTD v POCRNJA & ORS

Judgment

GILES JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Hughes DCJ given on 18 June 2004. It has been listed for hearing as a so-called wrapped-up hearing, with full submissions so that if leave be granted, the appeal can be determined without further delay. For reasons which will appear, however, the application and the appeal should be disposed of in a manner not turning upon the substantive question posed for decision.
The circumstances were as follows.
Mr Goran Pocrnja was injured in a motor accident. He was the passenger in a vehicle driven by his brother, Mr Mikan Pocrnja, when it was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the State Transit Authority of New South Wales and driven by Mr Allan Ghialis. Mr Goran Pocrnja was employed by Brighton Ceiling Pty Limited, and the accident occurred on his way to work. He became entitled as against that company to benefits pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Benefits were duly paid.
By an ordinary statement of claim filed on 5 March 2003 Brighton Ceiling Pty Limited claimed from Mr Mikan Pocrnja, Mr Ghialis and…

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 Brighton Ceiling Pty Ltd v Pocrnja 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] NSWCA 175
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brighton Ceiling Pty Ltd (the employer) sought indemnity from Mr Pocrnja (the third party) for workers' compensation benefits paid to an employee injured by the third party's negligence. The employer's claim was brought under section 151Z of the *Workers Compensation Act*. The dispute concerned the quantum of damages the injured worker could have recovered from the third party, which in turn limited the employer's indemnity claim. The matter came before the District Court on appeal from an arbitrator's decision.

The central legal issue before the District Court was whether the arbitrator had erred in calculating the damages recoverable by the injured worker from the third party, specifically concerning the component of non-economic loss. The employer contended that the arbitrator's finding of $240,000 in total damages, including $46,000 for non-economic loss, was excessive and that the District Court judge should have limited the rehearing to that specific component. The employer argued that the judge should have declined to entertain a hypothetical question regarding the worker's potential recovery from the third party, as it could not affect the outcome of the employer's indemnity claim.

The appellate court found that the District Court judge had erred in entertaining a hypothetical question that was not determinative of the employer's claim for indemnity. The court reasoned that the arbitrator's award, which included a component for non-economic loss, was not to be disturbed unless there was a demonstrable error that impacted the employer's claim. The appellate court concluded that the judge should have reinstated the arbitrator's award without modification.

Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The order made by the District Court judge was set aside, and the award of the arbitrator was reinstated. The costs order made by the District Court judge was also set aside, with each party bearing their own costs at both the District Court and appellate levels.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted. Claimant directed to file a notice of appeal within fourteen days. Appeal allowed. In lieu of the order, if any made by Hughes DCJ, the award of the arbitrator be reinstated without modification. Costs order made by Hughes DCJ set aside. No orders for costs either before Hughes DCJ or at the appellate level, to the intent that each side will pay its and their own costs at both stages.

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.