Legal Research
Cases
Chapman v Dickinson

Chapman v Dickinson

Case [2020] NSWDC 269 29 May 2020

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269
Hearing dates: 26, 27 and 28 May 2020
Date of orders: 29 May 2020
Decision date: 29 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Plaintiff’s motion dated 20 May 2020 to strike out paragraphs of the defence is dismissed.
(2)   Costs of the motion reserved.
(3)   Leave to the defendants to file the proposed amended defence.
(4)   Parties to arrange a formal mediation to be conducted by 1 July 2020.
(5)   The second defendant’s workers compensation insurer is given leave to participate in the mediation.
(6)   Liberty to apply in the event that a mediation with both insurers attending cannot be arranged by 1 July 2020.
(7)   List for mention on Friday, 3 July 2020 at 10am before P Taylor SC DCJ.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings - striking out - related proceedings in Workers Compensation Commission – finding of no jurisdiction - issue estoppel - Anshun estoppel - abuse of process - withdrawal of admissions - jurisdiction
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.24
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, s 105
Cases Cited: Amalgamated Engineering Union (Aust Section), Ex parte; Re Jackson (1937) 38 SR (NSW) 13; (1937) 55 WN (NSW) 7
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93
Attorney General For Trinidad and Tobago v Eriché [1893] AC 518
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366
Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown (2011) 242 CLR 647; [2011] HCA 22
Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 040
National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman and Patrick [2019] NSWWCCPD 54
Nominal Defendant v Gabriel (2007) 71 NSWLR 150; [2007] NSWCA 52
Pollnow v Armstrong [2000] NSWCA 245
The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing [2015] HCA 28
Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134
Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine [2016] NSWCA 213
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Texts Cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Limited [2007] HCATrans 150
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Christopher Chapman (plaintiff)
Justin Dickinson (first defendant)
Annette Patrick trading as White Heavy Haulage (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Goodridge (plaintiff)
Mr A J Parker (defendants)
Solicitors:
Firths - The Compensation Lawyers (plaintiff)
McInnes Wilson Lawyers NSW (defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/265257
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

Christopher Chapman suffered a badly injured arm in 2014 on a worksite and commenced proceedings for damages against the business owner, Annette Patrick, and her son, Justin Dickinson, who was an employee involved in the incident. The defendants claim that Mr Chapman was a deemed worker under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998,…

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.

Continue reading Chapman v Dickinson

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269
Case: [2020] NSWDC 269
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chapman v Dickinson, the parties were engaged in a dispute over a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Victoria. The plaintiff, Chapman, sought damages for personal injuries arising from the accident, while the defendant, Dickinson, denied liability and asserted various defences. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by P Taylor SC DCJ. The court was tasked with deciding whether certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out and whether the plaintiff’s motion to do so should be dismissed.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the striking out of paragraphs of the defence, the effect of related proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission, the applicability of issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, and the potential for abuse of process. The plaintiff argued that certain admissions made by the defendant should be withdrawn, which would impact the defendant’s ability to rely on certain defences. The court also considered whether the Workers Compensation Commission had jurisdiction over the matter and if the principles of issue and Anshun estoppel applied. Furthermore, the court examined the possibility of abuse of process if the plaintiff’s motion was granted.

The court determined that the plaintiff’s motion to strike out paragraphs of the defence should be dismissed. The court found that the related proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission did not result in a finding of no jurisdiction, and thus, issue estoppel applied. Anshun estoppel was also found to be applicable, barring the plaintiff from relitigating issues that had been determined in the Workers Compensation proceedings. The court also concluded that there was no abuse of process if the plaintiff’s motion was denied. Consequently, the court granted leave for the defendants to file an amended defence, ordered the parties to arrange a formal mediation by 1 July 2020, and provided leave for the second defendant’s workers compensation insurer to participate in the mediation. The court reserved the costs of the motion and listed the matter for mention on 3 July 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Plaintiff’s motion dated 20 May 2020 to strike out paragraphs of the defence is dismissed.

(2) Costs of the motion reserved.

(3) Leave to the defendants to file the proposed amended defence.

(4) Parties to arrange a formal mediation to be conducted by 1 July 2020.

(5) The second defendant’s workers compensation insurer is given leave to participate in the mediation.

(6) Liberty to apply in the event that a mediation with both insurers attending cannot be arranged by 1 July 2020.

(7) List for mention on Friday, 3 July 2020 at 10am before P Taylor SC DCJ.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269

Most Recent Citation

Chapman v Dickinson (No 3) [2021] NSWDC 63

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Dickinson v Chapman
[2022] NSWCA 2 Para 7

…to an abuse of process. By judgment delivered on 29 May 2020, Judge P Taylor SC dismissed the plaintiff’s motion. [2] 2. Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269 (“Chapman (No 1)”).…
Chapman v Dickinson (No 3)
[2021] NSWDC 63 Para 1

…t concerns an unsuccessful strike out application Mr Chapman made prior to trial. [1] Costs of that application were reserved. 1. Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269.…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman
[2019] NSWWCCPD 54 Para 12

…n the Commission. [2] That says nothing about whether there is a dispute in this Court. 2. National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman and Patrick [2019] NSWWCCPD 54 at [83], [84].…
Chapman v Dickinson
[2018] NSWDC 359 Para 3

…ld likely complicate having two trials. That resistance was upheld and the application for a separate trial was dismissed. [1] 1. Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359.…
The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison
[2017] NSWCA 149 Para 47

…ded. It is, as Mr Chapman initially frankly admitted, somewhat inconsistent with the decisions of the Court of Appeal in The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 and Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134 where the Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of this Court finding that a plaintiff was not a worker. By the conclus…
Tran v Vo
[2017] NSWCA 134 Para 47

…ally frankly admitted, somewhat inconsistent with the decisions of the Court of Appeal in The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 and Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134 where the Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of this Court finding that a plaintiff was not a worker. By the conclusion of submissions, Mr Chapman…
Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine
[2016] NSWCA 213 Para 19

…kburn Cashman v Brown [2011] HCA 22; (2011) 242 CLR 647, 662 [40]; Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine [2016] NSWCA 213 at [24]-[38].…
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd
[2015] HCA 28

…R 150; [2007] NSWCA 52 Pollnow v Armstrong [2000] NSWCA 245 The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing [2015] HCA 28 Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134 Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine [2016] NSWCA 213 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Texts…
Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown
[2011] HCA 22

…r v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366 Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown (2011) 242 CLR 647; [2011] HCA 22 Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 040 National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman and Patrick […
Commonwealth of Australia v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Limited
[2007] HCATrans 150 Para 21

…circumstances ” exception. 8. [1991] 2 AC 93. 9. Arnold at 107C. 10. (1843) 3 Hare 100. 11. [2000] NSWCA 245. 12. [2001] QSC 040. 13. [2007] HCATrans 150.…
The Nominal Defendant v Gabriel
[2007] NSWCA 52

…2001] QSC 040 National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman and Patrick [2019] NSWWCCPD 54 Nominal Defendant v Gabriel (2007) 71 NSWLR 150; [2007] NSWCA 52 Pollnow v Armstrong [2000] NSWCA 245 The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing [2015] HCA 28 Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134…
Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd
[2001] QSC 40 Para 21

…ss of the “ special circumstances ” exception. 8. [1991] 2 AC 93. 9. Arnold at 107C. 10. (1843) 3 Hare 100. 11. [2000] NSWCA 245. 12. [2001] QSC 040. 13. [2007] HCATrans 150.…
Pollnow v Armstrong
[2000] NSWCA 245 Para 21

…view on the correctness of the “ special circumstances ” exception. 8. [1991] 2 AC 93. 9. Arnold at 107C. 10. (1843) 3 Hare 100. 11. [2000] NSWCA 245. 12. [2001] QSC 040. 13. [2007] HCATrans 150.…
Cachia v Isaacs
[1989] NSWCA 31 Para 18

…ss the tribunal has jurisdiction to “ decide the matter conclusively and for all purposes between the parties ”, no issue estoppel arises. [4] 3. Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366 per McHugh JA at 387. 4. Amalgamated Engineering Union (Aust Section), Ex parte; Re Jackson (1937) 38 SR (NSW) 13; (1937) 55 WN (NSW) 7.…
Henderson v Henderson
[1948] HCA 15

…d and Tobago v Eriché [1893] AC 518 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366 Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown (2011) 242 CLR 647; [2011] HCA 22 Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 040 National…
Blair v Curran
[1939] HCA 23 Para 9

…The principle of issue estoppel was, respectfully, most clearly stated by Dixon J in Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, at 531-532 as follows:…
[1991] 2 AC 93
[1991] 2 AC 93 Para 21

…ecial leave application, expressly refrained from expressing a view on the correctness of the “ special circumstances ” exception. 8. [1991] 2 AC 93. 9. Arnold at 107C. 10. (1843) 3 Hare 100. 11. [2000] NSWCA 245. 12. [2001] QSC 040. 13. [2007] HCATrans 150.…
[1893] AC 518
[1893] AC 518 Para 19

…d be attributed to ” decisions of subordinate bodies than the legislation provides. [6] 5. Attorney General For Trinidad and Tobago v Eriché [1893] AC 518, 523. 6. Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown [2011] HCA 22; (2011) 242 CLR 647, 662 [40]; Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v H…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
56 2 mentions (from Para 44)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
6.24 2 mentions (from Para 54)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
105 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 20)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 41)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269
Hearing dates:	26, 27 and 28 May 2020
Date of orders:	29 May 2020
Decision date:	29 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Plaintiff’s motion dated 20 May 2020 to strike out paragraphs of the defence is dismissed. (2) Costs of the motion reserved. (3) Leave to the defendants to file the proposed amended defence. (4) Parties to arrange a formal mediation to be conducted by 1 July 2020. (5) The second defendant’s workers compensation insurer is given leave to participate in the mediation. (6) Liberty to apply in the event that a mediation with both insurers attending cannot be arranged by 1 July 2020. (7) List for mention on Friday, 3 July 2020 at 10am before P Taylor SC DCJ.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings - striking out - related proceedings in Workers Compensation Commission – finding of no jurisdiction - issue estoppel - Anshun estoppel - abuse of process - withdrawal of admissions - jurisdiction
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.24 Workers Compensation Act 1987 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, s 105
Cases Cited:	Amalgamated Engineering Union (Aust Section), Ex parte; Re Jackson (1937) 38 SR (NSW) 13; (1937) 55 WN (NSW) 7 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 Attorney General For Trinidad and Tobago v Eriché [1893] AC 518 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Cachia v Isaacs (1985) 3 NSWLR 366 Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown (2011) 242 CLR 647; [2011] HCA 22 Mulgrave Central Mill Co Ltd v Hagglunds Drives Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 040 National Transport Insurance Limited v Chapman and Patrick [2019] NSWWCCPD 54 Nominal Defendant v Gabriel (2007) 71 NSWLR 150; [2007] NSWCA 52 Pollnow v Armstrong [2000] NSWCA 245 The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing [2015] HCA 28 Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134 Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst v Hine [2016] NSWCA 213 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Texts Cited:	Commonwealth of Australia v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Limited [2007] HCATrans 150
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Christopher Chapman (plaintiff) Justin Dickinson (first defendant) Annette Patrick trading as White Heavy Haulage (second defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr R Goodridge (plaintiff) Mr A J Parker (defendants) Solicitors: Firths - The Compensation Lawyers (plaintiff) McInnes Wilson Lawyers NSW (defendants)
File Number(s):	2017/265257
Publication restriction:	None