Fields v Berrigan (No. 1)

Case [2022] NSWDC 567


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fields v Berrigan & Anor (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 567
Hearing dates: 15-16 September 2022
Date of orders: 16 September 2022
Decision date: 16 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Matter number 2022/00180644 is dismissed.

Catchwords:

WORK INJURY DAMAGES – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – NOTICE OF MOTION – Application to dismiss proceedings – Failure to comply with procedural requirements for Work Injury Damages claim – Attempt to remedy procedural deficiencies.

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Workers Compensation Act 1926 (NSW)

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Attileah v State Rail Authority [2005] 62 NSWLR 439

Dickinsonv Chapman [2022] NSWCA 2

Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1016

Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311

Singh v Lynch [2019] NSWSC 1403

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Plaintiff - Todd Matthew Fields
First Defendant – Paul Berrigan
Second Defendant – Tamworth Jockey Club
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff – Mr Best, M.
First Defendant – Mr Morris, P. SC
Second Defendant – Mr Stanton, D.

Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Everingham Solomons
First Defendant – McCabe Curwood
Second Defendant – Bartier Perry Lawyers
File Number(s): 2016/85305; 2022/180644
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background

  1. HIS HONOUR: Currently before me are two sets of proceedings and a number of motions on notice. One set of proceedings is matter number 2016/85305. The other set of proceedings is matter 2022/180644. The proceedings before me can be politely described as a dog’s breakfast. They all arise out of an accident which befell Todd Matthew Fields, the Plaintiff, on 20 March 2013, some nine and a half years ago.

Plaintiff makes a workers compensation claim

  1. In a claim for workers compensation, the Plaintiff described himself as a trackwork rider. The brief description of injury in the same document is this:

“Horse bucked & trampled me.”

On 26 March 2013, Mr Paul Berrigan, the First Defendant, completed an “Employer’s Injury Claim Form” using stationery provided to him by Racing NSW. Under the heading “Employer details”, the First Defendant inserted his own name. Under the heading “Employee details” he inserted the name “Todd Fields”. He confirmed that Mr Fields was a “Track work rider”. Under the heading “Current Duties,” Mr Berrigan said this:

“Just started

Riding 4 days.”

  1. In answer to a question as to whether he was aware if the worker had other employment, Mr Berrigan ticked a box saying “Yes”, and went on to state that the Plaintiff had been riding for other trainers. He confirmed that the accident occurred when a horse bucked and that the incident occurred at a racecourse. It is common ground that the racecourse was, in fact, the Tamworth Racecourse, which is controlled, managed, and perhaps even owned, by the Tamworth Jockey Club. In his report of injury, Mr Berrigan said that the incident was reported on the day that it occurred, and that he was aware that the…

Continue reading Fields v Berrigan (No. 1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fields v Berrigan (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 567
Case
[2022] NSWDC 567
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fields brought a claim against Berrigan for damages resulting from a work injury. The dispute arose from a failure to comply with procedural requirements for such claims. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the procedural deficiencies could be remedied, and if not, whether the proceedings should be dismissed.

The court had to determine whether the procedural deficiencies were so significant that they rendered the claim invalid. It was necessary to assess whether the deficiencies could be cured through an amendment or if the failure to comply with the procedural requirements was fatal to the claim. The court noted that while the plaintiff had attempted to remedy the deficiencies, the amendments did not fully address the required procedural steps. Given that the statutory requirements for work injury claims are strict, the court found that the deficiencies could not be rectified.

Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements. The dismissal was based on the court's finding that the deficiencies were not amenable to an amendment that would cure them. As a result, the matter was dismissed without proceeding to a substantive determination on the merits of the claim.

ORDERS:
Matter number 2022/00180644 is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Matter number 2022/00180644 is dismissed.

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.