Chapman v Dickinson

Case [2018] NSWDC 359


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359
Hearing dates: 19 October 2018
Date of orders: 19 October 2018
Decision date: 27 November 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Defendants’ Amended Notice of Motion filed on 19 October 2018 dismissed.
(2) Defendants pay plaintiff’s costs.
(3) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(4) Parties to bring in short minutes of order for the future conduct of these proceedings.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for separate trial (r 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)) as to whether the plaintiff was a “worker or deemed worker by reason of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and/or the Workers Compensation Act 1987” – criteria for ordering a separate trial of issues, contrary to the general practice of determining all issues at the same time – absence of agreed facts – issue not suited to severability – application for separate trial refused
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38 and 192A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2001 (NSW), Part 11
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 60, 280A and 315
Cases Cited: Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411
Bailey v Director‑General Department of Natural Resources [2013] NSWSC 515
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Kashyap v Sydney Local Health District [2014] NSWSC 182
Langley v AMP Capital Investors Ltd [2007] NSWSC 937
LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Russells [2017] QSC 45
On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2011] FCA 366
Street v Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 697
The Star Pty Ltd v Mitchison [2017] NSWCA 149
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Christopher Chapman
First Defendant: Justin Dickinson
Second Defendant: Annette Patrick trading as White Heavy Haulage
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R Goodridge
Defendants: Mr A J Parker

  Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Firths The Compensation Lawyers
Defendants: McInnes Wilson
File Number(s): 2017/265257
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The application before the court

  1. The defendants by Amended Notice of Motion filed on 19 October 2018 seeks the following orders:

  1. Pursuant to r 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the question of whether the plaintiff was a “worker or deemed worker by reason of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and/or the Workers Compensation Act 1987” be severed and listed for separate hearing to the question of the liability and quantum of the plaintiff’s damages, if any.

  2. Costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

  3. Any such further or other order that the Honourable Court deems fit.

  1. The defendants rely upon the affidavit of John Brophy Renshaw dated 14 August 2018 (Exhibit B) and Adam Mason Abboud dated 18 October 2018 (Exhibit A).

  2. The plaintiff relies upon the…

Continue reading Chapman v Dickinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359
Case
[2018] NSWDC 359
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman v Dickinson was an application for a separate trial of certain issues in a personal injury action filed in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Chapman, sought damages against Dickinson for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. Dickinson sought to separate the trial of the issue as to whether Chapman was a worker or deemed worker under the Workers Compensation Acts. The court had to determine if the criteria for ordering a separate trial were satisfied, particularly whether the issue was severable from the main proceedings.

The court considered whether the criteria for ordering a separate trial under r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) were met. The court noted that there were no agreed facts and the issue was not suited to severability. The court found that the plaintiff's application for a separate trial did not meet the criteria for ordering a separate trial. The court held that the plaintiff's application for a separate trial was dismissed.

The court ordered that the defendants’ amended notice of motion filed on 19 October 2018 be dismissed. The court also ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs. The court granted liberty to apply in relation to costs and directed the parties to bring in short minutes of order for the future conduct of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Defendants’ Amended Notice of Motion filed on 19 October 2018 dismissed.

(2) Defendants pay plaintiff’s costs.

(3) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.

(4) Parties to bring in short minutes of order for the future conduct of these 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.