Appeal Outcome: Special leave application refused with costs by the High Court - 7 March 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: EBB v FAST FIX STEEL FIXING PTY LTD [2007] NSWCA 236
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 10 August 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
6 September 2007JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Basten JA at 2; Hislop J at 60 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – leave required to reopen earlier decision of Court – factors relevant to grant of leave - WORKERS COMPENSATION – deemed worker – independent contractor – recovery of common law damages by deemed worker – application of restrictions on recovery of damages – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Part 5 – Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) Schedule 1 and Chapter 7 - Words and Phrases – “deemed worker” – “for the purposes of the Act” LEGISLATION CITED: Workers’ Compensation Act 1926 (NSW), ss 6, 63, 65, Part VIII
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 149, 150, 151, 151A, 151B, 151C, 151D, 151E, 151F, Part 5; Schedule 1, cl 1, Schedule 6, Pt 14, cl 1
Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 175, Part X
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 15, 16, 17, 250, 254, Schedule 1, cls 1A, 2, 3, 3(5), 4(3), 5(2), 8(2), 13(2), Chapter 7, Division 6CASES CITED: Clutha Developments Pty Ltd v Barry (1989) 18 NSWLR 86
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd; WMC Resources Ltd v Koljibabic (2002) 27 WAR 91
Hobbs v Costain Australia Ltd (1995) 11 NSWCCR 56
Klein v Minister for Education [2007] HCA 2; (2007) 81 ALJR 582
Kotevski v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 126
Minister for Education v Klein [2005] WASCA 185
National Transport Insurance Ltd v Chalker [2005] NSWCA 62
OP Industries Pty Ltd v MMI Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd (1998) 17 NSWCCR 193
Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166
Richardson v Mayer (No. 2) (1964) 64 SRNSW 502
Shaw v Bindaree Beef Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 125
The Sydney Turf Club v Crowley (1972) 126 CLR 420
University of New England v Larsen-Walsh [2000] NSWCA 363
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Group Apprentices v Statrona Pty Ltd; Commercial Union Workers’ Compensation NSW Ltd v Hannaford (unrep, NSWCA, Mahoney AP, Meagher and Sheller JJA, 29 August 1995)PARTIES: Martin Ebb – Appellant
Fast Fix Steel Fixing Pty Ltd - RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40487/06 COUNSEL: D.E. Baran – Appellant
M.A. Elkaim SC/J.W. Catsanos - RespondentSOLICITORS: Stacks Goudkamp – Appellant
Moray & Agnew - RespondentLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 1161/06 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Truss DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20.07.06; 27.07.06
CA 40487/06
DC 1161/066 September 2007SANTOW JA
BASTEN JA
HISLOP J
EBB v FAST FIX STEEL FIXING PTY LTD
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ebb v Fast Fix Steel Fixing 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr Ebb (the appellant) and Fast Fix Steel Fixing Pty Ltd (the respondent). The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Ebb, who had suffered an injury, was a "deemed worker" for the purposes of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) and the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW). If he was a deemed worker, this would impact his ability to recover common law damages for his injury. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Ebb qualified as a "deemed worker" under the relevant legislation, and if so, whether the restrictions on the recovery of common law damages for deemed workers, as stipulated in Part 5 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* and related provisions, applied to his situation. A further issue was whether leave should be granted to reopen an earlier decision of the Court, given the circumstances of the appeal.
The Court considered the factors relevant to granting leave to reopen an earlier decision, ultimately finding that such leave was not warranted in this instance. In relation to the central question of Mr Ebb's status, the Court analysed the legislative framework governing deemed workers and the conditions under which they could pursue common law damages. The Court's reasoning, which is not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that Mr Ebb did not meet the criteria for a deemed worker in a manner that would permit him to recover common law damages under the applicable statutory restrictions.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Ebb qualified as a "deemed worker" under the relevant legislation, and if so, whether the restrictions on the recovery of common law damages for deemed workers, as stipulated in Part 5 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* and related provisions, applied to his situation. A further issue was whether leave should be granted to reopen an earlier decision of the Court, given the circumstances of the appeal.
The Court considered the factors relevant to granting leave to reopen an earlier decision, ultimately finding that such leave was not warranted in this instance. In relation to the central question of Mr Ebb's status, the Court analysed the legislative framework governing deemed workers and the conditions under which they could pursue common law damages. The Court's reasoning, which is not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that Mr Ebb did not meet the criteria for a deemed worker in a manner that would permit him to recover common law damages under the applicable statutory restrictions.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.