Hughes v Whittens Group Pty Ltd - [2017] NSWSC 329

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hughes v Whittens Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 329
Hearing dates: 17 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The notice of motion of the first defendant of 10 January 2017 is dismissed.
(2) The first defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the proceedings before me.
(3) The matter is granted expedition.
(4) The matter is listed before the Common Law Registrar at 9AM on 11 April 2017.

Catchwords: CIVIL – PROCEDURE – transfer of proceedings – application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of Western Australia – whether transfer in interests of justice – notice of motion dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 5(2)(b)(iii)
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947 (WA)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z
Cases Cited: BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400; [2004] HCA 61
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Matthew Hughes (Plaintiff)
Whittens Group Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
BGC Contracting Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Campbell SC with R Di Michiel (Plaintiff)
D Toomey SC (First Defendant)
B Stiff (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff)
Rankin Ellison Lawyers (First Defendant)
Colin, Biggers & Paisley (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/269848
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

This application for transfer of proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) (the Act) came before me in the Duty List. With the assistance of two members of the inner Bar, the issues became very refined. In particular, it was agreed that the question for me to determine is whether the transfer sought by the first defendant (to which I shall refer for convenience, unless greater discrimination is required, as the defendant) is in the interests of justice.

Background

The background may be shortly stated. The plaintiff was a fly-in, fly-out worker at a mine at Port Hedland in the north-west of Western Australia. On 8 December 2014, it is alleged that he fell heavily, thereby suffering injuries to his back. The case for the plaintiff – as demonstrated by a statement of claim filed in this Court on 8 September 2016 – is that a sloping part of the mine had been cut too deeply, and that that played a role in the plaintiff’s fall. The case for the plaintiff is that there have not only been physical injuries, but also important psychiatric consequences.
The first defendant is the labour hire company that made the plaintiff available to work at the mine. The second defendant is the chief contractor for whom the plaintiff was actually working at the mine on the day of the fall.
By way of a notice of motion of 10 January 2017, the defendant has moved that the proceedings should be transferred to Western Australia. In support of that proposition,…

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 Hughes v Whittens Group 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: [2017] NSWSC 329
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v Whittens Group Pty Ltd involved an application by the plaintiff, Hughes, to transfer the proceedings from the District Court of Western Australia to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute originated from a contractual disagreement between Hughes, the plaintiff, and Whittens Group Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to have the case transferred on the basis that the Supreme Court was better suited to handle the complexities and significance of the issues involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court was warranted in the interests of justice. The court had to consider the nature and complexity of the issues, the amount in dispute, and whether the case would be more appropriately handled in the Supreme Court. The court also needed to assess if the transfer would cause any undue delay or prejudice to the parties.

The court found that the application to transfer was not in the interests of justice. The judge ruled that the case did not involve matters of significant complexity or importance that would necessitate a transfer to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no indication that the District Court was unable to manage the case. The application was dismissed, and the proceedings were to remain in the District Court of Western Australia.

Orders