Damien Davies v Belinda Barancewicz [2011] ACTSC 166 (11 October 2011)
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS –Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) – whether the Court has the power under s 36 to extend time for an employee entitled to claim workers compensation benefits from her employer to sue a third party tortfeasor – whether employee excluded by s 16B – whether s 16A is limited to claims for damages by employees against their employers
COURTS AND JUDGES – Judges – adequacy of reasons – the duty to give reasons does not require every argument to be addressed
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SC 198 of 2010 Judge: Katzmann J Supreme Court of the ACT Date: 11 October 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) ) No. SC 198 of 2010 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:DAMIEN DAVIES
Appellant
AND:BELINDA BARANCEWICZ
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Katzmann J Date: 11 October 2011 Place: Sydney/Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed with costs.
On her way home from work on 13 March 2007 Belinda Barancewicz was involved in an accident when the vehicle she was…
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 Davies v Barancewicz
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Davies v Barancewicz [2011] ACTSC 166
Case
[2011] ACTSC 166
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Davies v Barancewicz involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Davies, and the defendant, Barancewicz. The plaintiff sought to sue the defendant for damages related to an injury sustained in a workplace accident, where the defendant was a third-party tortfeasor. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court has the authority under section 36 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) to extend the time for the plaintiff to sue the third-party tortfeasor, and whether the exclusion under section 16B of the Act applied to the plaintiff. The court also considered whether section 16A of the Act was limited to claims for damages by employees against their employers.
The court held that the statutory framework provided by the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) did not confer the power to extend time for an employee to sue a third-party tortfeasor. The court concluded that the exclusion under section 16B applied to the plaintiff and that section 16A was indeed limited to claims for damages by employees against their employers. The court found that the duty to give reasons did not require every argument to be addressed, and the reasoning provided was adequate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs.