Chapman v Dickinson (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWDC 847


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman v Dickinson (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 847
Hearing dates: 23, 24, 25, 26 November; 15 December (submission via email) 2020
Date of orders: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $121,844.61.

(2)   Costs reserved.

Catchwords:

TORTS – negligence – accident at worksite – plaintiff often visited the site and did tasks of his own choosing – usually received money - whether plaintiff a worker – whether plaintiff a deemed worker – whether a contract between plaintiff and defendant – whether agreement uncertain – whether intention to create legal relations – contributory negligence - damages

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002, s 3B, s 5B, s 5G, s 5H, s 5I, s 5R, s 16

Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 2A, s 151E

Workplace Injury Management and WorkersCompensation Act 1998, s 4, Sch 1

Cases Cited:

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424; [2001] FCA 1833

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge [2018] NSWCA 183

Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8

GC NSW Pty Ltd v Galati [2020] NSWCA 326

Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 72

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44

Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR 389; [1950] VLR 44

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32

March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; [1991] HCA 12

Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227

Nominal Defendant v Rooskov [2012] NSWCA 43

Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221

Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34

Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWCA 310

South Australia v The Commonwealth (1962) 108 CLR 130

Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422; [1983] HCA 5

Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128

Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19

Category:Principal judgment
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

  1. Intending no disrespect, in this judgment I sometimes refer to Kevin Dickinson as Kevin and Justin Dickinson as Justin for ease of understanding.

A. Introduction

  1. Christopher Chapman suffered a badly injured arm on 1 September 2014 on a White Heavy Haulage industrial worksite and commenced proceedings for damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 against the business owner, Annette Patrick, and her son, Justin Dickinson, who was…

Continue reading Chapman v Dickinson (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chapman v Dickinson (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 847
Case
[2020] NSWDC 847
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman v Dickinson (No 2) involved a dispute over an accident that occurred at a worksite, with the plaintiff seeking damages from the defendants for negligence. The plaintiff, Chapman, frequently visited the site, performing tasks of his own choosing and usually receiving money for his work. The primary issues before the court were whether Chapman could be considered a worker or a deemed worker under the relevant legislation, whether there was a contract between Chapman and the defendants, and if the agreement was uncertain or if there was an intention to create legal relations. The court was also required to assess the defendants' claim of contributory negligence and determine the appropriate quantum of damages.

The court found that Chapman was not a worker or a deemed worker under the relevant statute. The court held that there was no formal contract between Chapman and the defendants, but there was an arrangement that gave rise to certain obligations. The court emphasised the intention to create legal relations and found that the agreement was not uncertain. In terms of contributory negligence, the court determined that Chapman had contributed to his injuries but did not bar his claim. Finally, the court assessed the damages and awarded Chapman $121,844.61.

The court's judgment was in favour of Chapman, with the defendants ordered to pay the awarded damages. The matter of costs was reserved for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $121,844.61.

(2) Costs reserved.

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.