Danielsen v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd - [2009] SASC 56

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
DANIELSEN v ONESTEEL MANUFACTURING PTY LTD & ANOR
[2009] SASC 56
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)
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PLEADINGS - GENERALLY
Appeal from decision of District Court Judge upholding order of Master striking out plaintiff and appellant’s claim - plaintiff’s claims could not be made out in amended statement of claim, deed of release and discharge precluded bringing of number of claims, no cause of action identified against the defendant and respondent - amended statement of claim grossly defective - appellant issued proceedings against 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) - defendant not relevant employer for the purposes of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) and Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA).
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 Limited - section 54 not inoperative by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution - no direct inconsistency arises between section 54 and the various provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) not applicable - direction that section 78B notices be served on several Attorneys unnecessary - failure to comply with duty to serve notice under section 78B does not invalidate the exercise of jurisdiction - duty to serve notice under section 78B enlivened where issue under Constitution or its interpretation is established rather than asserted - proposed amended statement of claim not compliant with rules of pleading - leave to amend statement of claim refused - section 72 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) did not justify claims in respect of perjury - deed of discharge not rendered ineffective by the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 54(1); Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA) s 19 and s 56; Civil Liability Act

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 Danielsen v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd 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: [2009] SASC 56
Decision Date: 27 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Danielsen v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd, the plaintiff challenged the validity of a deed of release that aimed to preclude claims against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the plaintiff argued the deed was ineffective. The dispute centred on the enforceability of the release deed and whether it appropriately barred claims against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd, which had been dismissed by the District Court for other reasons.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the deed of release was effective in barring the plaintiff's claims against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd. The court also needed to determine if the release deed could stand independently from the reasons the District Court had already dismissed the claims against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd. Additionally, the court examined the broader constitutional implications raised by the plaintiff, although these were ultimately found to be unarguable.

The court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the release deed was valid and enforceable. It held that the deed effectively barred the claims against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd, irrespective of the reasons the District Court had provided for dismissing those claims. The court also noted that the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiff were unarguable and did not provide a basis for overturning the decision of the District Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders proposed by the District Court were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J DAVID J

The plaintiff sought to argue that a deed of release was ineffective. On its face, the deed precludes the claims being advanced against OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd. However, as earlier discussed, those claims were rejected for the different reasons identified by the District Court Judge.Conclusion I would dismiss this appeal. SULAN J: I agree that the Constitutional point is unarguable. I agree with the reasons of Gray J. I agree the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J. I agree with the orders he proposes.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J, DAVID J

Full text does not contain this section.