Dickinson v Chapman

Case [2022] NSWCA 2


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Dickinson v Chapman [2022] NSWCA 2
Hearing dates: 13 August 2021
Date of orders: 3 February 2022
Decision date: 03 February 2022
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [46];
McCallum JA at [47]
Decision:

(1)   Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court, order 1 made on 18 December 2020 and order 1 made on 23 February 2021.

(2)   In lieu thereof,

(a)   dismiss the statement of claim dated 31 August 2017;

(b)   order that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings in the District Court.

(3)   Order that the respondent pay the appellants’ costs in this Court.

Catchwords:

CONTRACTS – formation – intention to create legal relations – agreement evidenced by course of conduct – regular rate of payment – record of hours worked – whether payment for work performed gave rise to contractual rights or obligations on a quantum meruit

TORTS – negligence – workplace injury – whether injured party a worker or deemed worker – whether work done under contract of employment – non-compliance with procedural requirements if claim for work injury damages – application of Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), Sch 1, cl 2

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 91

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 66; Pt 5, Div 2

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 250; Sch 1, cl 2

Cases Cited:

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424; [1954] HCA 20

Chapman v Dickinson [2018] NSWDC 359

Chapman v Dickinson [2020] NSWDC 269

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Justin Dickinson (First Appellant)
Annette Patrick (Second Appellant)
Christopher Chapman (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J Catsanos SC / Mr A Parker (Appellants)
Mr P Braham SC / Mr R Goodridge (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McInnes Wilson Lawyers (Appellants)
Firths the Compensation Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/365141
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:

[2020] NSWDC 847

Date of Decision:
18 December 2020
Before:
P Taylor SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2017/265257

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The respondent (the plaintiff in the court below), Mr Christopher Chapman, completed odd jobs at two industrial yards from which the second appellant (the second defendant in the court below), Ms Annette Patrick, operated a heavy freight haulage business known as White Heavy Haulage.

On 1 September 2014, Mr Chapman’s left forearm was trapped in the closing jaws of a front-end loader and suffered a significant crush injury. The front-end loader was being operated by the first appellant (the first defendant in the court below), Mr Justin Dickinson, who was an employee of the business.

On 31 August 2017, Mr Chapman commenced proceedings in the District Court seeking damages in negligence, joining Mr Dickinson and…

Continue reading Dickinson v Chapman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dickinson v Chapman [2022] NSWCA 2
Case
[2022] NSWCA 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between Dickinson (appellant) and Chapman (respondent) regarding payment for work performed. Chapman had been injured while performing work for Dickinson and sought damages. The primary legal questions before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales were whether a contract for employment or a contractual right to payment for work performed on a quantum meruit basis had been established, and whether Chapman was a worker or deemed worker under the relevant legislation, particularly in light of procedural requirements for claims of work injury damages.

The court was required to determine if the parties' conduct, including the regular payment of a rate for work and the keeping of records of hours worked, evinced an intention to create legal relations that would give rise to contractual rights or obligations. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Chapman qualified as a worker or deemed worker for the purposes of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW), and if any claim for work injury damages had been brought in compliance with the Act's procedural requirements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Court's judgment. The court found that the evidence did not establish a contract of employment or a basis for a quantum meruit claim. Consequently, the statement of claim was dismissed, and Chapman was ordered to pay Dickinson's costs in the District Court and the costs of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court, order 1 made on 18 December 2020 and order 1 made on 23 February 2021.

(2) In lieu thereof,

(a) dismiss the statement of claim dated 31 August 2017;

(b) order that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings in the District Court.

(3) Order that the respondent pay the appellants’ costs in this Court.

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.