SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited v Moir (No 2) |
Citation: | [2020] ACTCA 44 |
Hearing Date: | 4 August 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 4 September 2020 |
Before: | Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson and Collier JJ |
Decision: | See [84] |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – WORKERS COMPENSATION – Determination of substantive law applicable to common law claim – “State or Territory of connection” – application of tests in s 36B(3) Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) – whether respondent “usually works in the ACT” – respondent usually works in the ACT and NSW – appeal upheld PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS – nature of – whether final or interlocutory – declaration is necessarily final |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 50, 1521 Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), ss 36A, 36B, 182B, 182D, pt 9.2 Workers Compensation (Cross-border Workers) Amendment Act 2014 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; 261 FCR 301 Avon Product Pty Ltd v Falls [2010] ACTCA 21; 5 ACTLR 34 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; 211 CLR 540 International General Electric Co of New York Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners[1962] Ch 784 Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde [2002] FCA 250; 116 FCR 58 |
Texts Cited: | Australian Capital Territory Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 25 September 2014 |
Parties: | I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited (Appellant) Nigel James Moir (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel A Muller (Appellant) C Erskine SC and J Sainty (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Minter Ellison (Appellant) Blumers Personal Injury Lawyers (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 38 of 2019 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Elkaim J Date of Decision: 30 August 2019 Case Title: Moir v I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited Citation: [2019] ACTSC… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited v Moir (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] ACTCA 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was to determine the correct application of section 36B(3) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1951* (ACT) in ascertaining the "State or Territory of connection" for a worker who performed work in multiple jurisdictions. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether Mr Moir's work arrangements meant he "usually works in the ACT" within the meaning of the legislation, thereby establishing the ACT as the relevant jurisdiction for his common law claim.
The Court reasoned that the phrase "usually works in the ACT" required an assessment of the worker's habitual place of employment, considering the totality of their work activities. It was held that Mr Moir's evidence established that he usually worked in both the ACT and New South Wales, and that the previous judicial interpretation of "usually works" did not necessitate exclusive work within a single jurisdiction. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in their application of the statutory test, leading to the conclusion that the ACT was indeed the State or Territory of connection. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [84]
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.