Ivanoff v Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd - [2022] ACTSC 155

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Ivanoff v Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 155
Hearing Date:	3 June 2022
DecisionDate:	29 June 2022
Before:	McWilliam AsJ
Decision:	The application is dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – r 1521 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – application to determine “State or Territory of connection” as a separate issue
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1521 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) s 36B, 182D
Cases Cited:	Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] HCA 9; 198 CLR 334 Energy Australia v Australian Energy Ltd [2001] FCA 1049 Formwork Services Pty Ltd v Moir (No 2) [2020] ACTCA 44 Idoport v National Australia Bank [2000] NSWSC 1215 Medici Clinics (Australia) Pty Ltd and Medici Clinics Pty Ltd v Patel [2014] ACTSC 29 Moir v I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] ACTCA 44 Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1999] FCA 718; 240 FCR 276 Southwell v Bennett [2010] NSWSC 1372 Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; 206 CLR 1 Tom Folino-Gallo & Sons Investments Pty Ltd v Zulian [2019] NSWSC 596
Parties:	Branden Ivanoff (Plaintiff) Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd ABN 84 607 427 243 (First Defendant) Core Building Group Pty Ltd ABN 52 155 228 836 (Second Defendant) RAR Rigging Pty Ltd ABN 19 140 993 700 (Third Defendant) RAR Cranes Pty Ltd ABN 88 140 993 684 (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel A Muller (Plaintiff) S Bryson (Third Defendant)
Solicitors United Legal (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew (Third Defendant)
File Number:	SC 197 of 2021

McWilliam AsJ:

Mr Branden Ivanoff, the plaintiff, has brought a claim in negligence alleging that he suffered injury in the course of his employment. On 25 November 2018, Mr Ivanoff was working at a construction site in Gungahlin. He alleges he was walking down the stairwell which was part of a scaffolding system. There was some uneven scaffolding which was obscured and which caused him to roll his left ankle after he stepped on the unevenly erected scaffolding. As a result, he suffered injury, in the form of an osteochondral talar dome fracture, fracture of the distal fibular and three full width torn lateral ligaments.

He has brought a claim against:

(a) Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd (ABN 84 607 427 243), the company said to be responsible for establishing the scaffolding at the worksite (first defendant).

(b) Core Building Group Pty Ltd (ABN 52 155 228 836), who was said to be the head contractor at the site (second defendant).

(c) RAR Rigging Pty Ltd (ABN 19 140 993 700) as his employer at the time, (third defendant).

(d) RAR Cranes Pty Ltd (ABN 89 140 993 684) (fourth defendant) an associated entity of the third defendant, and the company who is alleged to have held the subcontract with the second…

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 Ivanoff v Alto Scaffolding 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: [2022] ACTSC 155
Decision Date: 29 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ivanoff v Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd is a case before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which concerns a dispute arising from a workplace accident. The plaintiff, Ivanoff, was injured while working as an employee of Alto Scaffolding Pty Ltd and seeks compensation. The primary issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case, specifically focusing on determining the “State or Territory of connection” as a separate issue from the substantive claim.

The legal issues before the court were whether the court had the authority to determine the jurisdictional issue as a separate matter under r 1521 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), and if so, whether this was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court needed to consider whether such a determination could be made without prejudicing the substantive claim or delaying the resolution of the case.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia found that while r 1521 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) allowed for the determination of jurisdictional issues as a separate matter, the circumstances of this case did not warrant such an approach. The court held that determining the jurisdictional issue separately could potentially prejudice the substantive claim and delay the resolution of the case. The court concluded that the appropriate course was to address the jurisdictional issue within the context of the substantive proceedings. Consequently, the application to determine the jurisdictional issue as a separate matter was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed with costs.

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.