Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd

Case [2002] WASCA 163


HEWITT -v- BENALE PTY LTD [2002] WASCA 163



(2002) 27 WAR 91
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2002] WASCA 163
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:33/200221 MAY 2002
Coram:SCOTT J
HASLUCK J
EM HEENAN J
19/06/02
46Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: FUL 33 of 2002 appeal dismissed, FUL 48 of 2002 appeal allowed
A
PDF Version
Parties:JOHN FRANCIS HEWITT
BENALE PTY LTD
WMC RESOURCES LTD
SLOBODAN KOLJIBABIC

Catchwords:

Workers compensation
Statutory interpretation
Constraints on award of common law damages
Whether leave required before commencing a claim for damages
Breach of duty by deemed employer
Scope of deemed employer provision in s 175 of the Act
Provision held to apply to a party deemed the employer at time of the accident
Leave to commence claim for damages required

Legislation:

Interpretation Act 1984, s 8
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, Pt IV Div 1, Pt IV Div 2, Pt III, s 3, s 3(a), s 5, s 18, s 86, s 93B, s 93C, s 93D(4), s 160, s 175, s 175(1), s 175(2), s 175(3)

Case References:

Austral Pacific Group Ltd (In Liq) v Air Services Australia (2000) 203 CLR 136
Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1
Bishop v Chung Bros (1907) 4 CLR 1262
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370
Collector of Customs v Agfa Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389
Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 285
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Comber (1986) 10 FCR 88
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 22
Hocking v Western Australian Bank (1909) 9 CLR 738
Hogan v Hogan (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 768
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 75 ALJR 1356
James Hardie & Coy v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 53
James v Cowan (1930) 43 CLR 386
Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth (1998) 95 CLR 337
Khoury (M & S) v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1984) 54 ALR 639
Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (No 3) (1987) 11 NSWLR 404
Koljibabic v WMC Resources Ltd [2001] WADC 286
Midgley v Monger [2000] WASC 291
Moltoni Corporation Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance Ltd (2001) 185 ALR 213
Muller v Dalgety & Co Ltd (1909) 9 CLR 693
Municipal Officers Association of Australia v Lancaster (1981) 37 ALR 559
Newcombe v AME Properties Ltd (1995) 14 WAR 259
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
Ocean Road Motel Pty Ltd v Pacific Acceptance Corporation Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 276
OP Industries Pty Ltd v MMI Workers' Compensation (NSW) Ltd (1998) 17 NSWCCR 193
Project Blue Sky Inc & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Re Monger; Ex Parte Rocket Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980013; 22 January 1998
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
The Council of the Shire of Lake Macquarie v Abadair…

Continue reading Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 163
Case
[2002] WASCA 163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal concerning workers' compensation and the interpretation of statutory provisions governing the award of common law damages. The applicant, Hewitt, sought damages from Benale Pty Ltd, the deemed employer under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). Hewitt's primary contention was whether he required leave to commence a claim for damages against Benale Pty Ltd, given the statutory constraints on such claims. The case also examined the scope of the deemed employer provision under section 175 of the Workers Compensation Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a claimant needed to obtain leave from the court before initiating a claim for damages against a party deemed to be an employer under the Act. The court also needed to determine the applicability of section 175, which outlines the deemed employer provisions, to Benale Pty Ltd in the context of the accident. Specifically, the court was required to decide whether the provision applied to a party deemed to be an employer at the time of the accident, thereby potentially limiting the claimant's right to seek common law damages.

The court held that leave was indeed required to commence a claim for damages against a deemed employer. The reasoning was based on the statutory language and the legislative intent behind constraining common law damages in workers' compensation cases. The court interpreted section 175 as extending to parties deemed employers at the time of the accident, thus supporting the notion that leave was necessary. This interpretation was deemed necessary to maintain the balance between workers' compensation schemes and common law rights. The court concluded that Benale Pty Ltd was appropriately considered a deemed employer under the circumstances, and the statutory constraints applied accordingly.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed in FUL 33 of 2002, while the appeal in FUL 48 of 2002 was allowed. This meant that Hewitt's claim for damages against Benale Pty Ltd required leave, affirming the statutory constraints on such claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

FUL 33 of 2002 appeal dismissed, FUL 48 of 2002 appeal allowed

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.