Frost v Amaca Pty Ltd

Case [2004] NSWCA 358

Reported Decision:

 61 NSWLR 159

Court of Appeal


CITATION: FROST v AMACA PTY LTD [2004] NSWCA 358
HEARING DATE(S): 13 September 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
1 October 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 53; Ipp JA at 54
DECISION: Summons dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: Dust Diseases Tribunal - whether it has jurisdiction to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Act 1970, s48 - Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 - stated case. (D)
LEGISLATION CITED: Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989, s32
Dust Diseases Tribunal Rules
Common Law Procedure Act 1899, s55
General Legal Procedure Act 1902, s13
Supreme Court Act 1970, ss23, 48, 69
Supreme Court Rules Part 32 Division 1
Supreme Court (Amendment) Act 1972
Report on Supreme Court Procedure, LRC 7, 1969
Second Report on Supreme Court Procedure, LRC 114, 1971
CASES CITED: Atkinson v United States of America Government [1971] AC 197
Attorney-General v Sillem (1863) 2 H & C 432, 159 ER 178 (Exchequer Chamber); (1864) 10 HLC 704, 11 ER 1200 (House of Lords)
Badgery v Murphy (1887) 4 WN(NSW) 85
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Goliath Portland Cement Co Ltd v Bengtell (1994) 33 NSWLR 414
Harris Simon & Co Limited v Manchester City Council [1975] 1 All ER 412
Holmes v Angwin (1906) 4 CLR 297
James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v Putt (1998) 43 NSWLR 554
James Hardie Industries Limited v Grigor (1998) 45 NSWLR 20
James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v Carley [1999] NSWCA 80
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357
NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Lockhart (1991) 22 NSWLR 518
Solomons v District Court (NSW) (2002) 211 CLR 119

PARTIES :

 Bernard George FROST v AMACA PTY LIMITED
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40541/04
COUNSEL: Appellant: G F Little SC/ D C Morgan
Respondent: S G Finch SC/ D Graham
SOLICITORS: Appellant: Turner Freeman
Respondent: Allens Arthur Robinson
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Dust Diseases Tribunal
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DDT 407 of 2002
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		Curtis J


                          CA 40541/2004

                          MASON P
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          IPP JA

                          Friday 1 October 2004

Bernard George FROST v AMACA PTY LIMITED

The Dust Diseases Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

***************


                          CA 40541/2004

                          MASON P
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          IPP JA

                          Friday 1 October 2004
Bernard George FROST v AMACA PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: The claimant is suing the opponent in the Dust Diseases Tribunal.

2 The claimant was born in New Zealand and resided there until December 1996 when he moved to Queensland. His claim for damages is based upon exposure to asbestos products while working as a lagger in Cambridge, New Zealand between 1963 and 1966. He is suffering from pleural diseases and asbestosis, the diseases first having been diagnosed in 2000. The parties agree that the relevant episodes of injury occurred…

Continue reading Frost v Amaca Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Frost v Amaca Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 358
Case
[2004] NSWCA 358
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Frost, sought to have a case stated to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal. The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Dust Diseases Tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to section 48 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW) and the *Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Dust Diseases Tribunal possessed the statutory power to refer questions of law arising from its proceedings to the Court of Appeal for determination by way of a stated case.

The Court of Appeal held that the *Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989* did not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to state a case to the Supreme Court. While section 48 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* generally permits courts to state cases, the specific provisions of the *Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989* were found to be exhaustive in relation to appeals and reviews of the Tribunal's decisions, and did not include a mechanism for stated cases. Consequently, the summons seeking to have a case stated was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Summons 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.