Goodman Fielder Limited v Hickson - [2006] NSWDC 163

CITATION: Goodman Fielder Limited v Hickson [2006] NSWDC 163

HEARING DATE(S): 31/08/06

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Kearns SC DCJ

DECISION: Separated questions answered.

CATCHWORDS: workers compensation - refund to employer - whether to be reduced for contributory negligence where the plaintiff and third party tortfeasor settle the plaintiff's claim - section 151Z - res judicata - judgment in rem

LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Interpretation Act 1987
Workers' Compensation Act 1926
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vict)

CASES CITED: Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1988) 194 CLR 355
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Limited (2005) 221 CLR 568
K&S Lake City Freighters Pty Limited v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297
Astley v AusTrust Limited (1999) 197 CLR 1
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v C E McDonald (NSW) Pty Limited (1991) 25 NSWLR 492
Isaacs & Sons v Salbstein [1916] 2 KB 139, 142, 144
QBE Workers' Compensation (NSW) Limited v Dolan (2004) 62 NSWLR 42
P E Bakers Pty Limited v Yahuda (1988) 15 NSWLR 437
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, 532
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446, 466
Henderson v Henderson 67 ER 313
Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502

PARTIES: Goodman Fielder Limited
Glenn Andrew Joseph Hickson

FILE NUMBER(S): 2502/06

COUNSEL: Mr G Parker appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr D Hooke appeared for the defendant.

SOLICITORS: Eakin McCaffery Cox for the plaintiff.
Beilby Poulden Costello A.B.N. 12 677 357 190 for the defendant.

District Court of New South Wales

Matter No. 2502/06

Goodman Fielder Limited

(Plaintiff)

Glenn Andrew Joseph Hickson

(Defendant)

20 September 2006

JUDGMENT

KEARNS J

The Issue - a novel one

1. Mr Hickson was injured on a journey accident and received workers compensation payments from his employer. If he sued the tortfeasor responsible for his injuries and proceeded to judgment, with the court making a finding of contributory negligence, the compensation repayment he would be liable to refund to his employer would be reduced by the extent of his contributory negligence. Because he sued the tortfeasor responsible for his injuries, and settled the matter without the court making a finding of contributory negligence, his employer argues that he is required to refund the whole of the compensation payments received with no reduction to account for his contributory negligence. The question that arises in this case is whether that is correct.

2. Neither counsel, both of whom are highly experienced in personal injuries litigation, has referred me to any authority directly in point.

3. Goodman Fielder Limited (GF), Mr Hickson’s employer, has sued him for the recovery of payments of compensation it has made to him or on his behalf. In his defence, Mr Hickson has pleaded that he…

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 Goodman Fielder Limited v Hickson 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] NSWDC 163
Decision Date: 20 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goodman Fielder Limited took legal action against Hickson, their former employee, seeking a refund of workers' compensation benefits. The dispute arose following Hickson's settlement with a third party tortfeasor. The court was tasked with determining whether the employer was entitled to reduce the compensation refund based on Hickson's contributory negligence in the third-party claim, despite no prior determination of contributory negligence or damages in that case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether evidence of Hickson's contributory negligence could be admitted in the current proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included the applicability of Section 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 to reduce workers' compensation benefits in light of a settlement without prior contributory negligence determination, and the admissibility of evidence regarding the extent of Hickson's contributory negligence in the third-party settlement. The court also examined whether res judicata principles applied to the judgment in rem concerning the third-party settlement.

In its reasoning, the court found that Section 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 could indeed operate to reduce the workers' compensation benefits repayable to Hickson. The court further held that evidence regarding the extent of Hickson's contributory negligence and the quantum of damages could be admitted in the current proceedings, subject to applicable rules of admissibility. This included evidence on the degree of Hickson's contributory negligence and the damages he would have been entitled to without reduction for contributory negligence. The court concluded that these principles applied despite the absence of a prior determination of contributory negligence in the third-party settlement.

The court's final orders confirmed that the employer could reduce the workers' compensation benefits by the amount attributable to Hickson's contributory negligence, as evidenced in the current proceedings, and that evidence of this contributory negligence could be used to determine the reduction.

Orders

Orders of the court

[ Separated questions answered.]

The [remaining]questions and answers, therefore, are as follows: Q1.a. Can s.10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 operate in reduction of the amount of workers compensation benefits repayable to the Plaintiff from damages recovered as a result of a settlement of the Defendant's action against a third party tortfeasor when no determination was made by a Court in the settled proceedings concerning contributory negligence and the quantum of damages? A: Yes.

Q1.b: If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, is evidence admissible in these proceedings to establish the extent to which the damages recovered by the Defendant as a result of the settlement of his action against the third party tortfeasor were in fact reduced on account of his contributory negligence? A: Yes, subject to appropriate rules as to admissibility of evidence at trial; and

Q3. In the alternative to Question (b), if the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, is evidence admissible in these proceedings to establish the degree of the Defendant's contributory negligence and the quantum of the damages to which the Defendant would have been entitled without reduction for contribution negligence? A: Yes.

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.

CITATION:	Goodman Fielder Limited v Hickson [2006] NSWDC 163
HEARING DATE(S):	31/08/06
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 September 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Kearns SC DCJ
DECISION:	Separated questions answered.
CATCHWORDS:	workers compensation - refund to employer - whether to be reduced for contributory negligence where the plaintiff and third party tortfeasor settle the plaintiff's claim - section 151Z - res judicata - judgment in rem
LEGISLATION CITED:	Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 Workers Compensation Act 1987 Interpretation Act 1987 Workers' Compensation Act 1926 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vict)
CASES CITED:	Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1988) 194 CLR 355 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Limited (2005) 221 CLR 568 K&S Lake City Freighters Pty Limited v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309 Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 Astley v AusTrust Limited (1999) 197 CLR 1 Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v C E McDonald (NSW) Pty Limited (1991) 25 NSWLR 492 Isaacs & Sons v Salbstein [1916] 2 KB 139, 142, 144 QBE Workers' Compensation (NSW) Limited v Dolan (2004) 62 NSWLR 42 P E Bakers Pty Limited v Yahuda (1988) 15 NSWLR 437 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, 532 Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446, 466 Henderson v Henderson 67 ER 313 Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502
PARTIES:	Goodman Fielder Limited Glenn Andrew Joseph Hickson
FILE NUMBER(S):	2502/06
COUNSEL:	Mr G Parker appeared for the plaintiff. Mr D Hooke appeared for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Eakin McCaffery Cox for the plaintiff. Beilby Poulden Costello A.B.N. 12 677 357 190 for the defendant.