Hampton v Exact Mining Group Pty Ltd

Case [2016] WADC 172

HAMPTON -v- EXACT MINING GROUP PTY LTD [2016] WADC 172



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2016] WADC 172
Case No:CIV:2215/201514 OCTOBER 2016
Coram:SCOTT DCJ13/12/16
PERTH
13Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Notional residual entitlements and child allowances to be deducted from judgment in Fatal Accidents Act claim pursuant to s 92(b)
PDF Version
Parties:AYA HAMPTON
DYLAN JOHN HAMPTON by his next friend AYA HAMPTON
KARINA TERESE HAMPTON by her next friend AYA HAMPTON
AMY LOUISE HAMPTON by her next friend AYA HAMPTON
EXACT MINING GROUP PTY LTD

Catchwords:
Determination of preliminary question of law
Supreme Court Rules 1971 O 31 r 1
Whether notional residual entitlement and child allowances paid to plaintiffs pursuant to the Worker's Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 to be deducted in assessing dependency entitlements in a claim pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1959

Legislation:
Fatal Accidents Act 1959, s 4(1), s 5(2), s 6
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 5(1), s 18, s 92(a), s 92(b), sch 1 cl 1(1) and (1A)

Case References:
Cramer v Geraldton Building Co (2004) 29 WAR 410
De Sales v Ingrilli (2002) 212 CLR 338
Dionisatos (for Estate of the Late George Dionisatos) v Acrow Formwork & Scaffolding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 281
Geraldton Building Co v Cramer [2001] WASCA 244
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60
Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd (1998) 186 CLR 1
Loongana Lime Pty Ltd v Worth [2006] WASCA 183
Manser v Spry (1994) 181 CLR 428
Nottingham v BHB Engineering Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 25
The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust v Forbes [1985] WAR 50
Vanguard Press Pty Ltd v Baxter (1995) 14 SR (WA) 190

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : HAMPTON -v- EXACT MINING GROUP PTY LTD [2016] WADC 172 CORAM : SCOTT DCJ HEARD : 14 OCTOBER 2016 DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 2215 of 2015 BETWEEN : AYA HAMPTON
    First Plaintiff

    DYLAN JOHN HAMPTON by his next friend AYA HAMPTON
    Second Plaintiff

    KARINA TERESE HAMPTON by her next friend AYA HAMPTON
    Third Plaintiff

    AMY LOUISE HAMPTON by her next friend AYA HAMPTON
    Fourth Plaintiff

    AND

    EXACT MINING GROUP PTY LTD
    Defendant

Catchwords:

Determination of preliminary question of law - Supreme Court Rules 1971 O 31 r 1 - Whether notional residual entitlement and child allowances paid to plaintiffs pursuant to the Worker's Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 to be deducted in assessing dependency entitlements in a claim pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1959

Legislation:

Fatal Accidents Act 1959, s 4(1), s 5(2), s 6


Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 5(1), s 18, s 92(a), s 92(b), sch 1 cl 1(1) and (1A)

Result:

Notional residual entitlements and child allowances to be deducted from judgment in Fatal Accidents Act claim pursuant to s 92(b)


Representation:

Counsel:


    First Plaintiff : Mr B L…

Continue reading Hampton v Exact Mining Group Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hampton v Exact Mining Group Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 172
Case
[2016] WADC 172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hampton v Exact Mining Group Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the deduction of notional residual entitlements and child allowances paid to the plaintiffs under the Worker's Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, when assessing dependency entitlements in a claim brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the court was required to determine a preliminary question of law concerning the interplay between these two Acts.

The central legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the notional residual entitlements and child allowances, paid to the plaintiffs as part of their compensation for a deceased worker's injuries, should be deducted from the amount recoverable by the plaintiffs under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959. Specifically, the court had to interpret section 92(b) of the Fatal Accidents Act, which provides for the deduction of any amounts paid by a third party to the deceased or their family, in calculating dependency entitlements.

In delivering its decision, the court held that the notional residual entitlements and child allowances paid under the Worker's Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 should be deducted from the amount recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959. The court reasoned that the purpose of section 92(b) was to prevent double recovery by the plaintiffs, and the notional residual entitlements and child allowances constituted payments made by a third party to the deceased or their family. As a result, these payments needed to be taken into account when assessing the dependency entitlements under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959.

The court's decision ultimately resulted in the deduction of the notional residual entitlements and child allowances from the judgment in the Fatal Accidents Act claim. This outcome was in line with the court's interpretation of section 92(b) of the Fatal Accidents Act, which aims to ensure that plaintiffs do not receive duplicate compensation for the same loss.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notional residual entitlements and child allowances to be deducted from judgment in Fatal Accidents Act claim pursuant to s 92(b)

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.