Hickson v Goodman Fielder Limited - [2008] HCATrans 345

[2008] HCATrans 345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S202 of 2008

B e t w e e n -
GLENN ANDREW JOSEPH HICKSON
Applicant
and
GOODMAN FIELDER LIMITED
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2008, AT 11.23 AM

MR A.S. BELL, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR D.J. HOOKE, for the applicant. (instructed by Beilby Poulden Costello)

MR L. KING, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR S. LAWRANCE, for the respondent. (instructed by Eakin McCaffery Cox)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Dr Bell.

MR BELL: Your Honours, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW) manifests an unequivocal intention that where a worker receives common law damages by reference to his or her contributory negligence, his or her obligation to repay previously received workers compensation payments is reduced to the extent of any reduction in the common law verdict for contributory negligence. Your Honours see that in section 10(2) of the Act, which is conveniently reproduced in the application book at page 7. That provision, and section 9, is at the heart of the statutory construction questions raised by this appeal.

Now, section 10(2) reflects the clear legislative policy that to the extent that an injured worker cannot recover by reason of his or her own fault, payments received under the no fault workers compensation scheme are to be retained, no windfall either to a worker or an employer.

The important question in this appeal, and in practice it is an extremely important question which extends, as I will seek to demonstrate, not only in New South Wales but in the context of Victorian legislation as well – the important question in the present case is whether the same statute dictates, one, a different result and, two, a less favourable result for the worker in circumstances where he or she settles the common law claim in the context of allegations of contributory negligence as opposed to litigating it through to a verdict, having findings of contributory negligence and consequential reduction.

By majority the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Justices Giles and Hislop, so held that it did, or on its proper interpretation, the Act should produce or does produce that different result, and that was a decision reached over the dissent of Justice Hodgson and in the face of what, in our submission, is a very clear and a very strong decision of the primary judge, Judge Kearns.

As a result of the decision, on the facts of the present case – and I go to the facts just simply to illustrate the practical consequences – Mr Hickson, my client, who is a paraplegic, injured on his way home from work when his bicycle was struck by a car, will be obliged to repay the entirety of just over $600,000…

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 Hickson v Goodman Fielder Limited 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: [2008] HCATrans 345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Hickson against a decision of Goodman Fielder Limited. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause within a deed of settlement, specifically regarding the calculation of a payment due to Hickson.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the phrase "net profit" as used in the deed of settlement was to be interpreted according to accounting standards or in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words, taking into account the context of the deed. The court was required to determine the correct method for calculating the profit figure upon which Hickson's entitlement was based.

The High Court held that the phrase "net profit" in the deed should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, informed by the context of the agreement, rather than by reference to specific accounting standards. The court reasoned that the parties had not expressly incorporated accounting standards into the deed, and therefore, the plain language of the clause, understood in its commercial context, was paramount. The court found that the calculation method adopted by Goodman Fielder did not accurately reflect the ordinary meaning of "net profit" as contemplated by the deed. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Court for redetermination of the amount payable to Hickson.

Orders