Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Limited - [2003] NSWSC 336

CITATION: Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 336

HEARING DATE(S): 4 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 April 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

DECISION: Appeal allowed; orders made by the master on 13 February 2003 are set aside; the respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act, if qualified.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence - claim for damages by employee against employer - whether the employee suffered "injury" within definition of "injury" in s3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 - whether, if fault by employer, "injury" was caused during the use of the vehicle by a defect in the vehicle - whether summary determination of issue appropriate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (England)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act, 1999, ss 3, 10, 89, 92, 94, 108, 122, 123
Workers Compensation Act, s 151E

CASES CITED: Akhrass v Allianz Australia Insurance & Anor [2002] NSWSC 352; [2002] NSWSC 772
Metcalf v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited (1906) 3 CLR 543
Pender v Power Coal Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 925
Topfelt Pty Limited v State Bank of New South Wales (1993) 47 FCR 226
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited v CSR Limited (2001) 52 NSWLR 193

PARTIES :
Alan Anthony Fuller (Appellant)
Reel Trans Pty Limited (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20739/01

COUNSEL: Dr. A.S. Morrison SC/J. Jobson (Appellant)
C.R.R. Hoeben SC/J. Sewell (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Injury Compensation Service (Appellant)
Holman Webb (Respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 20739/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Master Harrison

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Tuesday 29 April 2003

20739/01 ALAN ANTHONY FULLER v REEL TRANS PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of Master Harrison. On 13 February 2003 the master ordered on a motion filed by the respondent to this appeal that the appellant’s statement of claim should be dismissed. The master ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs up to and including 18 December 2002, which was the date of the last conference, and that thereafter each party was to pay his and its own costs.

2 The issue on this appeal is a narrow one and concerns the meaning of “injury” for the purposes of s 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, 1999.

3 The appellant Alan Anthony Fuller commenced proceedings by statement of claim against the respondent Reel Trans Pty Limited seeking to recover damages in respect of injury allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent on 23 May 2000. The appellant gave a description as to how he claims he was injured to an engineer whose report was tendered before the master and upon the content of which the master drew. I record here the outline of facts set out in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment of the master:

“3 …The plaintiff spent 70% of his…

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 Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Limited 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: [2003] NSWSC 336
Decision Date: 29 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fuller commenced proceedings against Reel Trans Pty Limited seeking damages for personal injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The employer argued that Fuller did not suffer an "injury" within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The court was required to determine whether Fuller's injuries were a result of the employer's fault and if the injuries were caused by a defect in the vehicle during its use. Additionally, the court had to decide if the issue of whether Fuller suffered an "injury" should be determined summarily.

The court held that Fuller's claim for damages was not precluded by the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The court found that Fuller's injuries were a direct result of the employer's negligence and that the injuries were indeed caused during the use of the vehicle. The court concluded that a summary determination of the issue of whether Fuller suffered an "injury" was not appropriate, as it required a full hearing to properly assess the evidence and circumstances surrounding the accident. The court found that Fuller did suffer an "injury" within the meaning of the Act and that the employer's negligence was a contributing factor to the injuries sustained.

As a result of the court's decision, Fuller's claim for damages against Reel Trans Pty Limited proceeded to a full hearing. The court did not make any final orders in this summary judgment but determined that the matter should not be summarily dismissed. The case would continue to a trial to determine the extent of Fuller's damages and the employer's liability.

Orders