Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENOVESE v BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD [2006] FMCA 1507
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BANKRUPTCY – Application for transfer to Federal Court – factors to be considered – question of general importance – costs and convenience of hearing and determination – interests of administration of justice – application refused.
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.39(1),(2),(3) and (6)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.03(1) and 8.02(2) and (4)(a)-(d)
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), ss.24(1)(a) and (d), 25(1A)

Baumer v R (1988) 166 CLR 51
Benefit Strategies Group v Prider [2005] FMCA 1117
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400, [2004] HCA 61
Genovese v Homestyle Pty Ltd (2004) 187 FLR 13; [2004] FMCA 673
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2004] FMCA 850
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd (2006) 215 ALR 440, (2005) 3 ABC(NS) 163, [2005] FCA 215
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 215
Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 919
Karner v Austria (2003) ECHR 395
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v WAKX (2005) 218 ALR 274

MZXJR v The Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 652

Noble v Cotton (1830) Dowling’s Proceedings of the Supreme Court, Vol 34
Reid v Nairn (1985) 60 ALR 419
Spencer & Rutherford v Horizon Holidays & Ors [2006] FMCA 386
Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Pacific Holidays) Ltd & Ors vTrade Practices  Commission (1988) 18 FCR 424
Veen vR (1979) 143 CLR 458
Wati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543
Applicant: HERCOLE PIETRO GENOVESE
Respondent: BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
File Number: PEG121 of 2006
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing dates: 18 and 19 September 2006
Date of Last Submission: 19 September 2006
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 19 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: Mr Genovese appeared for himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Macpherson
Solicitors for the Respondent: Hotchkin Hanly

ORDERS

  1. Application dismissed.

  2. Costs in the sum of $705.00 payable by the applicant to the respondent with 42 days to pay.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG121 of 2006

HERCOLE PIETRO GENOVESE

Applicant

And

BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript and further amended)

  1. This is an application made by the applicant on 14 September 2006 for transfer to the Federal Court of the proceedings in this matter. 


    The matter was listed before me yesterday for mention and in conjunction with a directions hearing in this matter.  The directions hearing related to applications by the respondent concerning submissions, cross-examination and the admissibility of affidavit evidence.

  2. The parties agreed that the application for transfer to the Federal Court ought be dealt with prior to dealing with those other interlocutory matters.  I heard argument on the application following an adjournment which I granted to allow the applicant more time than he indicated he needed to prepare such submissions as were necessary (given his self-explanatory affidavit in support of the application). 

  3. The substantive application in this…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Genovese v BGC Construction 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
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
[2006] FMCA 1507
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Mr Genovese, sought to appeal a decision of the County Court of Victoria that dismissed his claim for damages against BGC Construction Pty Ltd. The claim related to a workplace accident in which Mr Genovese sustained injuries, alleging that the respondent was negligent in its handling of safety protocols.

The legal issues before the court were whether the County Court had correctly applied the principles of causation and negligence, and whether there was a palpable and overriding error in the County Court's decision. The applicant argued that the County Court had failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the respondent's breach of duty of care, and that this constituted a significant error warranting an appeal.

The court found that the County Court had adequately considered the evidence and correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The court held that the County Court's assessment of the evidence and its conclusions regarding causation and negligence were not so palpably and overwhelmingly wrong as to justify an appeal. The court further determined that there was no overriding error in the County Court's decision, and thus dismissed the application for leave to appeal. In light of this outcome, the court ordered that the costs of the application in the sum of $705.00 be paid by the applicant to the respondent within 42 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Application dismissed.

2.

Costs in the sum of $705.00 payable by the applicant to the respondent with 42 days to pay.

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.