De San Miguel v Ryanex Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 263

DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 263

Last Update: 12/12/2003

DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 263
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 263
Case No:	CIV:1012/2000	Heard:	19 SEPTEMBER 2003
Coram:	COMMISSIONER GREAVES	Delivered:	28/11/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ROGER JOHN DE SAN MIGUEL RYANEX PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice Appeal from Deputy Registrar Application to strike out statement of claim as an abuse of process Cause of action unsustainable
Legislation:	Limitation Act 1935 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Case References:	Archer v Jeanswest Corporation Pty Ltd [2003] WADC 166 Ramsay v Aberfoyle Manufacturing Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (1935) 54 CLR 230 Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WADC 150 Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 263 CORAM : COMMISSIONER GREAVES HEARD : 19 SEPTEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1012 of 2000 BETWEEN : ROGER JOHN DE SAN MIGUEL

Plaintiff

AND

RYANEX PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Appeal from Deputy Registrar - Application to strike out statement of claim as an abuse of process - Cause of action unsustainable

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr J J Sheldrick

Defendant : Mr J S MacDonald

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : D'Angelo & Partners

Defendant : McAuliffe Williams & Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Archer v Jeanswest Corporation Pty Ltd [2003] WADC 166
Ramsay v Aberfoyle Manufacturing Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (1935) 54 CLR 230
Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WADC 150

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 COMMISSIONER GREAVES: This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar whereby he allowed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the continuation of the action would be an abuse of the process of the court. The learned Deputy Registrar reviews the history of the proceedings at [2] to [7] of his reasons and I do not repeat them.

2 Section 93E(3) and s 93E(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 provide:

"(3) Damages can only be awarded if —

(a) it is agreed or determined that the degree of disability is not less than 30% and that agreement or determination is recorded in accordance with the regulations

;

(b) the worker has a significant disability and elects, in the prescribed manner, to retain the right to seek damages and the election is registered in accordance with the regulations.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) the worker has a significant disability if it is agreed or determined that the degree of disability is not less than 16% and that…

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 De San Miguel v Ryanex 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: [2003] WADC 263
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of De San Miguel v Ryanex Pty Ltd involved the appellant, De San Miguel, who sought to appeal a decision made by a Deputy Registrar in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue in dispute was the Deputy Registrar's refusal to strike out the respondent's statement of claim, which was deemed an abuse of process by De San Miguel. The core of the matter revolved around the sustainability of the cause of action presented in the statement of claim.

The legal issues before the court required an examination of the grounds upon which De San Miguel sought to have the statement of claim struck out. The court had to determine whether the Deputy Registrar correctly exercised their discretion in refusing to strike out the statement of claim and whether the decision amounted to an abuse of process. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles governing the dismissal of a cause of action as unsustainable.

The court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the Deputy Registrar had not erred in refusing to strike out the statement of claim. The reasoning provided by the Deputy Registrar was deemed reasonable and aligned with the applicable legal standards. The court held that the Deputy Registrar's decision was not an abuse of process and that the cause of action was sustainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Deputy Registrar's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.