Hahnheuser v WorkCover Corporation of South Australia

[2001] FCA 1732

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hahnheuser v WorkCover Corporation of South Australia [2001] FCA 1732

AXEL HAHNHEUSER v WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Q 174 OF 2001

DOWSETT J
12 NOVEMBER 2001
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 174 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	AXEL HAHNHEUSER APPELLANT
AND:	WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 174 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	AXEL HAHNHEUSER APPELLANT
AND:	WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	12 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant submits that he has a counter-claim against the respondent either for defamation or, perhaps, for some other tortious relief arising out of what he alleges is an unjustifiable interference in his trading arrangements.  These allegations depend upon the assertion that in the course of investigating his claim, the respondent’s representatives made statements to persons who had business dealings with the appellant, which statements damaged his reputation or otherwise caused persons to cease trading with him.

2. However, when put to it, the appellant has acknowledged that he is unable to identify any particular action or statement made which would amount to such conduct by or on behalf of the respondent.  He referred to AB 88 - 93, which appear to be the respondent’s internal memorandum, and to AB 70 - 73, which is a record of an interview between Mr Hamden on behalf of the respondent and a Mr Victor Sukacz.  However, a perusal of the interview shows that no allegation was made by Mr Hamden which could in any way be said to reflect upon the appellant.

3. In those circumstances, no cause of action is raised, and it is not necessary to deal with difficult questions of causation or damage, nor is it necessary to deal with the question of whether or not such a counter-claim would deprive the present respondent of its status as a creditor for the purposes of presenting a petition.  See In re v KL Tractors Ltd [1954] VLR 505.

4. The appellant does not assert that there is any basis upon which the material demonstrates solvency.  In those circumstances, the appeal will be dismissed.

5. I order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             12 November 2001

The Appellant appeared In Person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M O'Donnell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Thomson Playford
Date of Hearing:	12 November 2001
Date of Judgment:	12 November 2001