CSR Ltd & Anor v Maddalena - [2005] HCATrans 875

[2005] HCATrans 875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P36 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
CSR LTD
First Appellant
MIDALCO PTY LTD
Second Appellant
and
ARTURO DELLA MADDALENA
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2005, AT 11.12 AM

MR B.W. WALKER, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.G. MENGLER, for the appellant. (instructed by Jackson McDonald)

MR B.F. QUINN: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR P.D. NICHOLAS, for the respondent. (instructed by Slater and Gordon)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: Your Honours, the reversal by the Full Court of the trial judge pursuant to the Full Court’s power and duty in an appeal by way of rehearing came down to the reversal of three elements or components of what was identified as the critical approach by the trial judge. Critical approach by the trial judge is illustrated by the correct summary of the way in which the decision had proceeded to be found in Justice Templeman’s reasons in the Full Court commencing at page 409 of the appeal book. In paragraph 5, his Honour notes that the psychiatric injury claim:

was based on the diagnosis of anxiety and depression made by a number of psychiatrists. The diagnosis was founded substantially on the appellant’s history as he –

that is the appellant plaintiff –

described it.

Over the page, 410, paragraph 8, having noted the response of the three relevant experts to the video evidence at the heart of the matter, Justice Templeman notes that:

The trial Judge expressed his concern about “the absence of any objective evidence” to support the appellant’s complaints.

Those complaints would appear to be focused in particular on the history given of symptoms, feelings and incapacity upon which the psychiatrists had proceeded to make their respective diagnoses using their expert experience. Then, having noted that the judge below had come to the conclusion that Dr Febbo had given an opinion to be preferred, an opinion the nature of which requires some elaboration, in simple terms the plaintiff had failed to prove his case, that is had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he suffered the psychiatric injury which had been generally claimed – it is at appeal book 2 at line 40, said to be there a “Psychological reaction”.

While on page 2 in those particulars of injury, may I draw to your Honours’ attention that the first four items, (a), (b), (c) and (d), were also the subject of contest at trial and all four of those were dismissed at trial, that is the plaintiff failed on the balance of probabilities to make out a case to the satisfaction of the trial judge that he suffered from those to a degree…

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 CSR Ltd & Anor v Maddalena 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] HCATrans 875
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Ltd and another party appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the interpretation of the *Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992* (Cth) and its application to certain employment arrangements. The dispute centred on whether the appellants were liable to pay superannuation guarantee contributions in respect of a group of employees who had been engaged through labour hire companies.

The High Court was required to determine whether the employees, who performed work for CSR Ltd but were formally employed by labour hire agencies, were considered employees of CSR Ltd for the purposes of the *Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992*. Specifically, the Court had to consider the definition of "employee" and "employer" within the Act and how these definitions applied to the tripartite relationship between the labour hire company, the employee, and the host employer (CSR Ltd). The central legal question was whether the substance of the employment relationship, rather than the formal contractual arrangements, dictated liability for superannuation contributions.

The Court analysed the nature of the employment relationship, applying principles of common law to ascertain who had the right to control the manner in which the work was performed. It was held that the critical factor was the degree of control exercised by the party engaging the worker. In this instance, the High Court found that the labour hire companies, as the entities that engaged, paid, and had the power to dismiss the workers, were the true employers for the purposes of the Act. The Court reasoned that while CSR Ltd exercised a degree of supervision over the day-to-day tasks, this did not displace the fundamental employer-employee relationship that existed between the workers and the labour hire agencies. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders