Legal Research
Cases
Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn

Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn

Case [2012] NSWSC 336 13 April 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn [2012] NSWSC 336
Hearing dates: 4 April 2012
Decision date: 13 April 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1. Prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion dated 13 October 2011 be dismissed.
2. Stand over the balance of the notice of motion, including costs, to 3 May 2012 at 9.30 am before Beech-Jones J.
3. Direct the Plaintiff on or before 24 April 2012 to use its best endeavours to serve on the First Defendant:
(i) a copy of these reasons;
(ii) a covering letter advising the First Defendant of the date the matter is next before the Court, and advising the First Defendant, that if he wishes to make any submission to the contrary of the making of an order for a separate hearing on liability, that he may do so before Beech-Jones J on that date.
4. Direct the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant to confer as to the appropriate form of order for a separate hearing on liability.
5. Direct the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant to, on or before 27 April 2012, file and serve either an agreed form of order for a separate hearing on liability or, failing agreement, their own forms of order.
6. There be liberty to apply in relation to the above directions.
7. The exhibits be returned.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summary judgment - vicarious liability - principle in Wickstead v Browne - preliminary question - separate hearing on liability.
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited: Alstom Australia Ltd v NAP Acoustics Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 217
Australian Securities Investments Commission v Sydney Investment House Equities Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 434
Boumelhem & Anor v NSW Crime Commission & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1413
Breheny v Cairncross & 2 Ors [2002] NSWCA 69
Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Lockhart [1942] AC 591
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1215
Leerdam & Anor v Noori & Ors [2009] NSWCA 90; (2009) 255 ALR 553
Morris v C W Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716
PAO & Ors v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdioceses of Sydney & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1216
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36; (1999) 198 CLR 180
State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; (2003) 212 CLR 511
Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; (2001) 206 CLR 1
Wickstead v Browne [1992] NSWCA 272; (1992) 30 NSWLR 1
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Steven George Dickson (Plaintiff)
Russell Peter Chaffey (First Defendant, no appearance)
Event Safety & Security Solutions Pty Ltd (ACN 117 191 287) trading as Reddawn (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr S G Campbell SC…

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 Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn

Details

AGLC: Dickson v Chaffey and Reddawn [2012] NSWSC 336
Case: [2012] NSWSC 336
Decision Date: 13 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn before the court involved a dispute concerning whether the defendant, Reddawn, could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Chaffey. The plaintiff, Dickson, sought damages for injuries sustained during a work-related incident allegedly caused by Chaffey's negligence. The court was required to determine whether Reddawn could be held liable under the principles of vicarious liability and whether a preliminary question about liability should be resolved in a separate hearing.

The central legal issue was whether the court should grant summary judgment in favour of Reddawn, or whether the matter should proceed to a full trial to determine vicarious liability. The plaintiff argued that Chaffey's actions fell within the scope of his employment and that Reddawn should therefore be held liable. The defendant contended that the matter should be dismissed on the basis that there was no evidence to support a finding of vicarious liability, and that a preliminary determination of liability was necessary.

The court found that the matter was complex and that the question of vicarious liability required a full trial rather than a summary judgment. It was determined that there were genuine issues of fact that needed to be resolved, including the scope of Chaffey's employment and the extent to which his actions were within that scope. The court held that the preliminary question of liability should be addressed in a separate hearing to ensure that all relevant evidence and arguments were thoroughly examined before making a final determination on vicarious liability. Consequently, the court did not grant summary judgment and ordered a separate hearing to address the issue of liability.

The court ordered that the matter proceed to a separate hearing to determine the question of vicarious liability, with both parties to present their evidence and arguments on the issue. The court also directed the parties to file and exchange further particulars to clarify the nature of the dispute and the evidence that would be adduced at the hearing. This approach ensured that the court would have all necessary information to make an informed decision on the liability of Reddawn.

Orders