Horgan v Master Cabinets (WA) Pty Ltd - [2024] WASC 272

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   HORGAN -v- MASTER CABINETS (WA) PTY LTD [2024] WASC 272
CORAM:   STRK J
HEARD:   29 JULY 2024
DELIVERED          :   29 JULY 2024
PUBLISHED           :   30 JULY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1866 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DAVID STUART HORGAN
Plaintiff

AND

MASTER CABINETS (WA) PTY LTD
First Defendant

MILLENNIUM GRANITES PTY LIMITED
Second Defendant

AAI LIMITED (TRADING AS GIO)
Third Defendant

INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (TRADING AS CGU INSURANCE)
Fourth Defendant

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
Fifth Defendant

INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Sixth Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 1867 of 2023
BETWEEN: DAVID STUART HORGAN
Plaintiff

AND

CARSILSTONE PTY LIMITED
First Defendant

CAESARSTONE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Second Defendant

HALIFAX VOGEL GROUP PTY LIMITED
Third Defendant

SMARTSTONE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Fourth Defendant

WK MARBLE AND GRANITE PTY LTD
Fifth Defendant

LAMINEX GROUP PTY LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

J.H. WILBERFORCE PTY LTD
Seventh Defendant

COSENTINO AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Eighth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Applications to extend validity of writs - Recent and proposed changes to legislation - Applications turn on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 7 r 1(2)

Result:

Applications granted

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 1866 of 2023

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	TJ McGinley
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance

CIV 1867 of 2023

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	TJ McGinley
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance
Fourth Defendant	:	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	:	No appearance
Seventh Defendant	:	No appearance
Eighth Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bell Group NV (In Liq) v Aspinall (1998) 19 WAR 561
Brealey v Board of Management of Royal Perth Hospital [1999] WASCA 158; (1999) 21 WAR 79
Chalmers and Partners v Kensit [2008] WASCA 122
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Barbrak Ltd [1987] 1 AC 597
Lawless v MacKendrick [No 2] [2008] WASC 15
Mighty River International Ltd v Mineral Resources Ltd [2017] WASC 298
Monteleone v Owners of the Old Soap Factory [2007] WASCA 79
T-D Joint Venture Pty Ltd (in liq) v SGH Energy Corporate Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 102
Van Leer Australia Pty Ltd v Palace Shipping KK (1981) 180 CLR 337
Victa Ltd v Johnson (1975) 10 SASR 496

STRK J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 29 July…

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 Horgan v Master Cabinets (WA) Pty Ltd 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: [2024] WASC 272
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Horgan v Master Cabinets (WA) Pty Ltd, the parties were a former employee, Mr. Horgan, and his employer, Master Cabinets (WA) Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on an application by Mr. Horgan to extend the validity of his writ beyond the statutory period, which had expired due to recent legislative changes. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time was justified under the circumstances. Key issues included the impact of legislative changes on the statutory period for filing writs, and whether the changes were sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension. Additionally, the court considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted an exception to the statutory limitation period.

The court examined the legislative changes introduced to the Limitation of Actions Act, which had reduced the period for which writs remained valid. It found that while the legislative changes were recent, they did not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court also considered the employer's delay in providing certain information to Mr. Horgan, but concluded that this did not warrant an extension of the statutory period. The court denied the application, holding that the statutory limitation period had expired and no exceptional circumstances were present to warrant an extension.

No final orders were made as the application to extend the validity of the writ was dismissed. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances that warrant an extension.

Orders