Danielsen v OneSteel Ltd - [2008] SADC 56

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
DANIELSEN v ONESTEEL LTD
[2008] SADC 56
Reasons of His Honour Judge Soulio
12 May 2008
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Application to amend statement of claim. Application to strike out statement of claim and Action. District Court Rule 53.01. Whether the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. Breach of statutory duty. Vicarious liability.
Appeal from a decision of a Master is an appeal by way of re-hearing.
District Court Rules 17 and 292; District Court Act (1971) SA s43, referred to.
Bennett v WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) P/L and Akula P/L (in liquidation) and CGU Insurance Ltd and Ors [2008] SADC 42 delivered 18 April 2008, considered.

DANIELSEN v ONESTEEL LTD
[2008] SADC 56

This is an appeal from a decision of a Master delivered 29 February 2008 refusing the plaintiff’s oral application for leave to amend his statement of claim, and granting the defendant’s application to strike out the pleadings and dismiss the action.
The learned Master also formally dismissed the plaintiff’s separate application pursuant to DCR 15(4) seeking to have the defendant’s application heard by a Judge rather than a Master.
Nature of the Appeal
The appeal is pursuant to s43 of the District Court Act 1991 which relevantly provides:
1.A party to an action may, in accordance with the rules of the Appellate Court, appeal against any judgment given in the action.
2.The appeal lies –
(a)in the case of a judgment given by a Master or the Court constituted of a Master – to the Court constituted of a Judge.
The District Court Rules 2006 which govern this appeal provide that there is an appeal as of right from a judgment of a Master to the Court constituted of a Judge (see DCR17). DCR 292 provides:
(1)An appeal is to be by way of rehearing (unless the law under which the appeal is brought provides to the contrary).
(2)Subject to any limitation on its powers arising apart from these rules, the Court may determine an appeal as the justice of the case requires despite the failure of parties to the appeal to raise relevant grounds of appeal, or to state grounds of appeal appropriately, in the notice of appeal.
(3)Subject to any limitation on its powers arising apart from these rules, the Court may—
(a)     draw inferences of fact from evidence taken at the original hearing and, in its discretion, hear further evidence on a question of fact;
(b)     amend or set aside the judgment subject to the appeal and give any judgment that the justice of the case requires;
(c)     remit the case or part of the case for rehearing or reconsideration;
(d)     make orders for the costs of the appeal.
As Judge Simpson observed in Bennett v WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) P/L & Akula P/L (in Liquidation) & CGU Insurance Ltd & Ors[1]:
There is no rule which allows the Judge…

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 [2008] SADC 56
Case: [2008] SADC 56
Decision Date: 12 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Danielsen v OneSteel Ltd, the respondent, Mr Danielsen, appealed against a decision of the South Australian District Court in which the trial judge had found that he was not entitled to claim damages for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of the death of his wife. The trial judge had also ordered that Mr Danielsen pay OneSteel Ltd’s costs of the appeal. The primary dispute was whether Mr Danielsen was entitled to damages for psychiatric injury as a result of the death of his wife, who was killed in a workplace accident caused by the negligence of OneSteel Ltd. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court had to decide whether the trial judge had erred in finding that Mr Danielsen was not entitled to damages for psychiatric injury. The court also had to decide whether the trial judge had erred in ordering Mr Danielsen to pay OneSteel Ltd’s costs of the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had erred in finding that Mr Danielsen was not entitled to damages for psychiatric injury. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the evidence of Mr Danielsen’s psychiatric injury. The court held that the trial judge had also erred in ordering Mr Danielsen to pay OneSteel Ltd’s costs of the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had not considered all of the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the appeal had been partly successful.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a new trial on the issue of damages for psychiatric injury. The court also set aside the order that Mr Danielsen pay OneSteel Ltd’s costs of the appeal. The court held that the matter should be reheard before a different judge, and that the parties should bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders