Ettridge v WorkCover Corporation - [2014] SASC 153

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
ETTRIDGE v WORKCOVER CORPORATION
[2014] SASC 153
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
16 October 2014
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - IN GENERAL AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Referral from Registrar for direction pursuant to r 53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) that he reject and refuse the filing of a proposed notice of appeal to the Full Court - whether the document, on its face, is an abuse of process.
Held: Proposed notice of appeal an abuse of process; Registrar to reject it for filing.
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1986 s86A; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r53, referred to.
Rana v Housing Trust of South Australia; Rana v Gregurev; Rana v Gregurev [2011] SASC 127; Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793; Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99; Re Davison (1997) 147 ALR 259; Manolakis v District Registrar (SA) (2008) 170 FCR 426; Andrew Garrett Wines Resorts Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] SASC 89; Eastman v Higgins (2007) 210 FLR 464; Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 88; Manolakis v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) & Ors [2009] SASC 193; Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378, considered.

ETTRIDGE v WORKCOVER CORPORATION
[2014] SASC 153
Civil
NICHOLSON J.
Introduction

John Paul Ettridge has sought to file a notice of appeal to the Full Court which lists WorkCover Corporation as respondent. Mr Ettridge is seeking to appeal against a judgment of the Full Bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal (SA) delivered on 22 September 2014.[1]
[1] Ettridge v WorkCover Corporation (Gemini Electric Motor Company Pty Ltd) [2014] SAWCT 38 (Gilchrist DP, Lieschke DP and Ardlie Aux DP).
Such an appeal lies to the Full Court of the Supreme Court only on a question of law and cannot be commenced except with the permission of a Judge of this Court.[2] However, the Registrar has referred to me the proposed notice of appeal for a determination whether the document should be rejected for filing, in any event, pursuant to the power conferred under r53 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA).
[2] Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1986, s86A.
Rule 53 provides for a power to reject documents submitted for filing and the Registrar has asked whether I am prepared to direct that Mr Ettridge’s proposed notice of appeal be rejected on the basis that it is, inter alia, an abuse of the processes of the Court.
The principles relevant to r53 have been helpfully summarised by Gray J in a recent decision of this court.[3] I, with respect, adopt that summary of principles as sufficient for present purposes.
[3] Rana v Housing Trust of South Australia; Rana v Gregurev; Rana v Gregurev [2011] SASC 127 (Gray J).
Rule 53 provides for power to…

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 Ettridge v WorkCover Corporation 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: [2014] SASC 153
Decision Date: 16 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Ettridge as the plaintiff and WorkCover Corporation as the defendant. The dispute arose out of proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia, focusing on the interpretation and application of the Rules of Court. The plaintiff sought to have certain proceedings and orders set aside due to alleged irregularities and procedural missteps by the defendant. The central issue was whether the Supreme Court of South Australia had the authority to review and set aside its own orders under specific circumstances, particularly when there were claims of procedural unfairness.

The court was required to determine the scope of its inherent jurisdiction to review its own orders and whether it could set aside orders made in the absence of the party seeking to have them set aside. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Rules of Court permitted such a review and whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of procedural fairness. The plaintiff argued that the orders were invalid due to a failure to follow the rules and an absence of procedural fairness, while the defendant contended that the court's orders were final and could not be reviewed in the manner sought by the plaintiff.

The court examined the principles of procedural fairness and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review its own orders. It found that the Rules of Court did not expressly preclude the court from reviewing its own orders in cases of procedural unfairness. The court held that while orders of the Supreme Court are generally final, there are circumstances in which the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside its own orders. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and found that the defendant's failure to ensure the plaintiff was aware of and could respond to the proceedings did constitute a breach of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the orders in question.

The final orders of the court were that the orders made in the absence of the plaintiff were set aside, and the proceedings were remitted for further consideration. The court directed that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that all parties were given due notice and an opportunity to be heard in any future proceedings. This decision underscored the court's commitment to procedural fairness and its willingness to review its own orders when necessary to uphold justice.

Orders