De San Miguel v Ryanex Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 147

DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 147

Last Update: 02/07/2003

DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 147
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 147
Published:	25/06/2003
Case No:	CIV:1012/2000	Heard:	15 MAY 2003
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	25/06/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed - Judgment entered for the defendant
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ROGER JOHN DE SAN MIGUEL RYANEX PTY LTD (ACN 009 239 114)
Catchwords:	Practice Application to strike out statement of claim Order 20, r 19(1) Rules of the Supreme Court Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981 Order 16 Rules of the Supreme Court application
Legislation:	District Court Rules Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Case References:	Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62 Nivan v Grant (1903) 29 VLR -102 Re Monger; Ex parte Dutch and Others [2001] WASCA 220; (2001) 25 WAR 96 Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WADC 150 Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Day v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 219 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Fitzgerald v Muldoon [1976] 2 NZLR 615 Gardiner & Anor v Ray [1999] WASC 140 Gluhic v Prok Group Limited [2002] WADC 110 Haasy v Town & Country Demolition Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 81 Home & Overseas Insurance Co Ltd v Mentor Insurance Co (UK) Ltd (in liq) [1989] 3 All ER 74 Howden v Truth & Sportsman Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 416 Lawrance v Lord Norreys (1890) 15 App Cas 210 Martin v City of Perth [2001] WADC 183 Pancontinental Mining Ltd v Posgold Investments Pty Ltd (1994) 121 ALR 405; 13 ACSR 117 Parker v St Bartholomew's House Inc [2002] WADC 175 Quancorp Pty Ltd & Anor v MacDonald & Ors [1999] WASCA 101 Re Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Sparks v Harland (1997) 1 WLR 143 Wilson v Dun's Gazette Ltd [1912] VLR 342

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : DE SAN MIGUEL -v- RYANEX PTY LTD [2003] WADC 147 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 15 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 25 JUNE 2003 PUBLISHED : 25 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1012 of 2000 BETWEEN : ROGER JOHN DE SAN MIGUEL

Plaintiff

AND

RYANEX PTY LTD (ACN 009 239 114)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application to strike out statement of claim - Order 20, r 19(1) Rules of the Supreme Court - Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981 - Order 16 Rules of the Supreme Court application

Legislation:

District Court Rules
Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed -…

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 147
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of De San Miguel v Ryanex Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, De San Miguel, and the defendant, Ryanex Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury allegedly sustained during the course of his employment with the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Order 20, rule 19(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, seeking to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The application was made on the basis that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

The court was required to determine whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether it complied with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries were work-related and whether the claim was barred by the provisions of the Act. The court also had to decide whether the statement of claim complied with the relevant rules of court.

The court held that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff's injuries were not work-related. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim that his injuries were sustained during the course of his employment. The court further held that the claim was barred by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, which provided the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. The court also found that the statement of claim did not comply with the relevant rules of court. The application to strike out the statement of claim was therefore allowed, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out and that judgment be entered for the defendant. The plaintiff was given leave to amend the statement of claim within 28 days of the judgment. If the plaintiff failed to amend the statement of claim within the specified time, the defendant could apply for summary judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed - Judgment entered for the defendant

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.