Calgaret v Electricity Corporation - [2000] WADC 4

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CALGARET -v- ELECTRICITY CORPORATION [2000] WADC 4

CORAM: BLAXELL DCJ

HEARD: 10 JANUARY 2000

DELIVERED : Delivered Extemporaneously on 10 JANUARY 2000 typed from tape and edited by Trial Judge.

FILE NO/S: CIVO 1 of 2000

BETWEEN: GARY LEON CALGARET
Plaintiff
AND
ELECTRICITY CORPORATION
Defendant

Catchwords:

Limitation of actions - Workers' compensation - Employer's liability - Damages - Application for leave to bring action - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935 s47A

Crown Suits Act 1947 s6(3)

Result:

Leave granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K Pratt
Defendant: Mr N Beech

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Paul O'Halloran
Defendant: Blake Dawson Waldron

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

Posner v Roberts (1986) WAR 1
Quinlivan v Portland Harbour Trust (1963) VR 25
Victorian Railways Commissioners v Casaccio (1961) VR 157

Case(s) also cited:

Re Monger; Exparte Woodford [1999] WASC 273

BLAXELL DCJ : In this matter I have had to prepare my reasons for decision as a matter of urgency and I reserve the right to elaborate and amend upon my reasons in due course should it prove necessary to do so.
The plaintiff in this matter brings an application under s47A of the Limitation Act and/or s6(3) of the Crown Suits Act for leave to commence proceedings against the defendant for damages for personal injuries suffered by him in the course of his employment with the defendant on or about 12 January 1994.
The evidence before me comes in the form of a number of affidavits from the plaintiff, his solicitor and from an employee of the defendant's insurers. I have also heard viva voce evidence from the plaintiff.
What all of these materials show is that the plaintiff on 12 January 1994 was employed with the defendant (then known as the State Energy Corporation) at the Bunbury power station as a cleaner. On 12 January 1994 he was working approximately 10ft above floor level in the power station. He was in some way perched on some pipes and was spraying the pipes with water. While doing so, he sprayed water onto a power board or power box which exploded at a distance of approximately 15m away. It is alleged that as a result of being startled by the explosion the plaintiff fell from the pipe - a distance of 10ft - and, as a result, suffered a knee injury.
Since then the plaintiff has found it necessary to seek medical attention and treatment on a number of occasions and I have an affidavit setting out all of the medical history, which can be described as consistent throughout. The plaintiff seems to have had persistent problems with his knee and the problems became more serious in early 1998 when, as he puts it, his knee collapsed a second time while he was walking through bush near Alice Springs.
Upon developing this aggravation of his symptoms in early 1998, the plaintiff decided to seek legal advice for the first time 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 Calgaret v Electricity 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: [2000] WADC 4
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Calgaret v Electricity Corporation, the applicant, Calgaret, sought damages for injuries sustained while working for the respondent, the Electricity Corporation. The primary dispute was whether Calgaret's claim was statute-barred under the provisions of the relevant legislation governing workers' compensation claims. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the statutory limitation period applied to the applicant's claim and if there were any circumstances that warranted an extension of that period. The court had to examine the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the applicant's claim was barred by the limitation period and if the application for leave to bring the action was justified.

The court found that the statutory limitation period applied to the applicant's claim; however, it also recognised that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of that period. The court noted that the applicant had not been aware of the extent of their injuries until a significant period after the incident, and therefore, the limitation period should be extended to accommodate this. The court granted the applicant's application for leave to bring the action, finding that the application was not statute-barred and that the exceptional circumstances warranted an extension of the limitation period.

As a result, the court granted the applicant's application for leave to bring the action. The applicant was now able to proceed with their claim for damages against the Electricity Corporation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted

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.