Hayden Robert Bruce Summers v The Trustee for Performance Services Trust - [2021] NTLC 25

CITATION:Hayden Robert Bruce Summers v The Trustee for Performance Services Trust
[2021] NTLC025
PARTIES:HAYDEN ROBERT BRUCE SUMMERS
V
THE TRUSTEE FOR PERFORMANCE SERVICES TRUST
V
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA – DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JUSTICE – CRIME VICTIMS SERVICES UNIT

TITLE OF COURT:  WORK HEALTH COURT
JURISDICTION:  WORK HEALTH
FILE NO(s):2021-00798-LC
DELIVERED ON:  9 July 2021
DELIVERED AT:  DARWIN
HEARING DATE(s):  16 June 2021
DECISION OF:  Gordon JR
CATCHWORDS:

Application to join Crime Victim Services Unit to Work Heath Court Proceedings; Jurisdictional limits of Work Health Court and NTCAT; Legislative basis for joinder; commonality of issues in multiple jurisdictions.

Return to Work Act 1986

Work Health Administration Act 2011

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2006

Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014

Work Health Court Rules1999

Johannsen v Buslink Vivo Pty Ltd [2018] NTMC 23

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Waa [2016] NTSC 69

Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v Launceston Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 279

Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2006) FCA 192

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Worker:Mr Downs
Employer:Mr Dancis
Proposed Respondent: Ms Tejaya

Solicitors:
Worker:NT Law
Employer:HWL Ebsworth
Proposed Respondent: Solicitor for the Northern Territory

Judgment category classification:  B
Judgment ID number:  025
Number of paragraphs:  59

IN THE WORK HEALTH COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 2021-00798-LC

BETWEEN:
HAYDEN ROBERT BRUCE SUMMERS

Worker
AND:
THE TRUSTEE FOR PERFORMANCE SERVICES TRUST

Employer
AND:
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA – DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JUSTICE – CRIME VICTIMS SERVICES UNIT

Proposed Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 9 July 2021)

GORDON JR

This is an Interlocutory Application under Part 11 of the Work Health Court Rules1999, filed by the Worker on 31 May 2021 seeking to join the Northern Territory of Australia[1] as a Respondent to the proceedings currently before the Work Health Court.
The substantive proceedings are in their infancy and save for this application, have yet to come before the Court.
The Worker allegedly suffered financial loss and injuries as a result of an assault committed on 21 November 2015 while performing duties as a crowd control officer at Opium Nightclub, Darwin City[2]. I note that the nature of the injuries and any loss suffered is not directly relevant to the joinder application and I do not intend to detail same here.
Following the incident on 21 November 2015 the Worker initially contacted the Crimes Victims Services Unit (CVSU) to enquire about his eligibility for compensation. When advised that, as the incident occurred during the course of employment, he may be eligible for a claim under the Return the Work Act 1986, the Worker made a claim for compensation through the Employer’s insurer, QBE.[3]
The Affidavit of Mr Downs sets out the procedural history between the Worker, CVSU and QBE as he attempted to navigate toward an award of compensation. Errors and delays occurred throughout the years leading us to the current situation.
The current situation is thus; the Worker has an application before…

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 Hayden Robert Bruce Summers v The Trustee for Performance Se... 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: [2021] NTLC 25
Decision Date: 9 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Robert Bruce Summers initiated proceedings in the Work Health Court of the Northern Territory against the Trustee for Performance Services Trust, asserting claims related to alleged breaches of occupational health and safety laws. The respondent, the Trustee for Performance Services Trust, disputed the claims. Summers sought to join the Crime Victim Services Unit as an additional party to the proceedings, arguing that this entity had a relevant interest in the matter due to the potential impact of the claimed breaches on crime victims. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to permit the joinder of the Crime Victim Services Unit and whether such a joinder was permissible under the applicable legislation.

The court examined the jurisdictional scope of the Work Health Court and the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT), along with the legislative provisions that govern the ability to join additional parties in proceedings. It was necessary to establish whether the proposed joinder was permissible under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The court also considered the requirement for commonality of issues between the parties and the potential impact of the joinder on the proceedings' efficiency and fairness.

After considering the legal framework and the arguments presented, the court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to permit the joinder of the Crime Victim Services Unit in the Work Health Court proceedings. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions governing the Work Health Court and NTCAT did not provide a basis for such joinder. Furthermore, the court determined that there was insufficient commonality of issues between the parties to warrant the joinder. Consequently, the application to join the Crime Victim Services Unit was dismissed. The court concluded that the application was beyond the jurisdictional limits of the Work Health Court and that the legislative framework did not support the proposed joinder.

Orders