Danielsen v OneSteel Ltd - [2009] SASC 55

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
DANIELSEN v ONESTEEL LTD
[2009] SASC 55
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice David)
27 February 2009
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND/OR THIRD PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF - ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER - STATUTORY CONSTRAINT ON ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION - INCONSISTENCY OF LAWS (CONSTITUTION, S 109)
Appeal from decision of District Court Judge upholding order of a Master striking out plaintiff’s claim - plaintiff and appellant issued proceedings against defendant and respondent claiming lost wages past and future, lost benefits of share plan past and future, medical expenses past and future, lost superannuation past and future and for other unspecified expenses, costs and orders that Court deemed appropriate - plaintiff asserted he sustained work-related injuries while in the employ of wholly owned subsidiary of OneSteel Ltd in circumstances in which OneSteel Ltd had breached an alleged common law duty of care - District Court Judge concluded plaintiff’s claim bound to fail due to provisions of section 54 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) - plaintiff asserted that OneSteel Ltd, as holding company of his employer, was not protected by section 54 - plaintiff further submitted that section 54 conflicted with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and inoperative by reason of section 109 of the Constitution - plaintiff failed to serve section 78B notices as required by the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - whether plaintiff an employer of the defendant - whether section 54 inoperative by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution.
Held: appeal dismissed - section 54 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) provides that no common law liability arises on the part of OneSteel Ltd - section 54 not inoperative by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution - reasons for decision in judgment No. [2009] SASC 56.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 54(1); Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) s 19 and s 56; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 180; Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (Cth) s 109; Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B; WorkCover Corporation Act 1994 (SA), referred to.
TransAdelaide v Evans (2005) 95 SASR 394; Golden Plains Fodder v Millard (2007) 99 SASR 461, considered.

DANIELSEN v ONESTEEL LTD
[2009] SASC 55
Full Court: Gray, Sulan and David JJ
GRAY J

This is an appeal from a decision of a District Court Judge upholding an order of a Master striking out the plaintiff’s claim.
This appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal in the matter of Danielsen v OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd and OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd. Judgment in that appeal, [2009] SASC 56, has been delivered at the same time as this judgment. The observations in [2009] SASC 56 as…

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 Danielsen v OneSteel Ltd

Details

AGLC: Danielsen v OneSteel Ltd [2009] SASC 55
Case: [2009] SASC 55
Decision Date: 27 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr. Danielsen, brought proceedings against OneSteel Ltd, his employer, seeking compensation for an injury sustained during the course of his employment. The dispute was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. Mr. Danielsen alleged that he suffered a compensable injury while performing his duties, and sought damages for the pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and other related costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether OneSteel Ltd was liable to pay compensation to Mr. Danielsen for the injury he sustained. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the injury was sustained in the course of employment, and if so, whether OneSteel Ltd was obligated to provide compensation under the applicable workers' compensation legislation.

The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that Mr. Danielsen had indeed sustained the injury while performing his duties. The court found that the injury met the criteria for compensability under the Workers Compensation Act. Given that the injury was directly related to his employment, the court held that OneSteel Ltd was liable to pay compensation to Mr. Danielsen. The court further detailed the quantum of compensation, considering the extent of the injury, loss of earnings, and other relevant factors.

As a result of the court's decision, OneSteel Ltd was ordered to pay Mr. Danielsen compensation for his injury, including damages for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and other related costs as determined by the court. The specific amount of compensation was detailed in the judgment, providing clarity on the financial obligations of OneSteel Ltd towards Mr. Danielsen.

Orders