Legal Research
Cases
Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd

Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 14 31 January 2014

Costs

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 14
Hearing dates: 18 September 2013
Decision date: 31 January 2014
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons so as finally to dispose of all outstanding orders in the proceedings within seven days

Catchwords: COSTS - whether Allied entitled to interest on the full amount of the statutory indemnity in light of a finding of 50 percent liability to Mr Grima for the purposes of s 151Z(2)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act - whether Allied entitled to costs on its cross-claim for the statutory indemnity beyond nominal costs such as filing fees - whether or not RFI should be limited to the payment of only 50 percent of the costs payable by it to Mr Grima - whether Allied is entitled to an order for costs on an indemnity basis thrown away or occasioned by reason of non-attendance of RFI's witness
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Ace-Semi Trailer Sales Pty Ltd v Zurich Australia Insurance Ltd [2009] NSWCA 381
Australian Winch and Haulage Company Pty Ltd v Collins [2013] NSWCA 327
Collins v Sydney Ports [2012] NSWSC 1316
Estate of the Late M T Mutton by its Executors and R W Mutton t/as Mutton Bros v Howard Haulage Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 340
Howard Rotavator Pty Ltd v Wilson (1987) 8 NSWLR 498
James Hardy & Company v Wyong Shire Council [2000] NSWCA 107; (2000) 48 NSWLR 679
J Blackwood & Son v Skilled Engineering [2008] NSWCA 142
Kwanchi Pty Ltd v Kocsis (1996) 40 NSWLR 270
Maricic v Dalma Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 237; (2006) 67 NSWLR 712
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Carmel Grima (Plaintiff)
RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Allied Overnight Express Pty Ltd (Cross-defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
P Hennessy SC with S Maybury (Plaintiff)
M McCulloch SC with J Chapman (Defendant)
J Guihot (Cross-defendant)
Solicitors:
Edwards Michael (Plaintiff)
Walker Hedges & Co (Defendant)
DLA Piper (Cross-defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/201053
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 2 September 2013, I made the following orders in these proceedings:

"1. Verdict for the plaintiff.

2. Declare that the amount of the respective contributions recoverable as between RFI and Allied on the cross-claims joined between them as just and equitable having regard to the extent of their responsibility for the plaintiff's damage is 50 percent each.

3. Direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to my conclusions within seven days."

The matter returned on 18 September 2013 for submissions on a limited number of unresolved issues. These reasons deal with those issues.

It is agreed among all of the parties that Mr Grima's damages against RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2002 come to $5.75M. Mr Grima did not sue his employer Allied…

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.

Continue reading Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 14
Case: [2014] NSWSC 14
Decision Date: 31 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Grima v RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with resolving several issues pertaining to costs and statutory indemnity. Mr Grima sought compensation from RFI (Aust) Pty Ltd under the Workers Compensation Act. Allied, a third party, cross-claimed for a statutory indemnity from RFI, arguing it was entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred in defending the proceedings. The primary focus of the case was on the allocation of costs and the extent to which Allied could claim interest on the statutory indemnity and costs beyond nominal expenses. The court had to determine whether Allied could claim interest on the full amount of the statutory indemnity despite a finding of 50 percent liability to Mr Grima. It also had to decide if Allied could claim more than nominal costs for its cross-claim and whether RFI should be limited to paying only 50 percent of the costs payable to Mr Grima. Finally, the court examined whether Allied was entitled to an order for costs on an indemnity basis due to the non-attendance of RFI's witness.

The court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions and relevant case law to address these issues. It found that Allied could not claim interest on the full amount of the statutory indemnity because of the 50 percent liability finding. Regarding costs, the court concluded that Allied was entitled to costs beyond nominal expenses, but these costs were to be proportionate to the liability found. The court also held that RFI should be responsible for 50 percent of the costs payable to Mr Grima. Additionally, the court granted Allied an order for costs on an indemnity basis due to the non-attendance of RFI's witness, which caused the proceedings to be extended.

The final orders of the court were that Allied could not claim interest on the full amount of the statutory indemnity but was entitled to costs beyond nominal expenses, proportionate to the liability. RFI was to pay 50 percent of the costs payable to Mr Grima. Furthermore, Allied was granted an order for costs on an indemnity basis due to the non-attendance of RFI's witness. This decision clarified the scope of costs and statutory indemnity claims in the context of workers' compensation proceedings, providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders