John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd (the applicant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned an action commenced in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory by the respondent, Mr. Rogerson, against the applicant for damages for personal injury. The respondent, an employee of the applicant, suffered injury in a workplace accident in New South Wales, although the applicant's principal place of business was in the Australian Capital Territory. The case was framed in tort, and the central issue revolved around which jurisdiction's law should govern the assessment of damages.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the "double actionability rule" is a choice of law rule and whether it applies to proceedings in federal jurisdiction. The Court also considered whether a single, consistent choice of law rule should be adopted across all Australian federal and non-federal jurisdictions. Furthermore, the Court had to decide whether the *lex fori* (the law of the forum) or the *lex loci delicti* (the law of the place where the tort was committed) should apply to torts with an interstate element. Finally, the Court examined whether limitations on damages, such as those imposed by Part 5 of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), are substantive or procedural matters for the purposes of choice of law.

The Court reasoned that the common law choice of law rules for torts involving an interstate element should be adapted to provide certainty and uniformity across the Australian federation. It held that the *lex loci delicti* governs torts committed in Australia with an interstate element, meaning the law of New South Wales should apply to the assessment of damages in this case. The Court clarified that limitations on the type and quantum of damages, as well as limitation provisions that bar a right or remedy, are substantive matters, not procedural ones. Consequently, these substantive issues are subject to the choice of law rules. The Court also considered the effect of section 118 of the Constitution, which mandates full faith and credit to the laws of other states and territories, and concluded that it supports the adoption of a uniform choice of law rule.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The matter was remitted to the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to be determined in accordance with the High Court's reasons, with costs to abide the outcome of that further hearing.