Jones v Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd - [2019] WADC 161

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   JONES -v- HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD [2019] WADC 161
CORAM:   SCOTT DCJ
HEARD:   23 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED          :   22 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3056 of 2014
BETWEEN:   TREVOR WAYNE JONES
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3057 of 2014
BETWEEN: RHONDA MEGAN GADDES
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3058 of 2014
BETWEEN: MICHAEL BRADLEY WOOD
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3059 of 2014
BETWEEN: MARK CHARLES LINTOTT
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3060 of 2014
BETWEEN: JAMES MULDER for the Estate of VIVIENNE MULDER
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3061 of 2014
BETWEEN: DARRYL WERTH
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 3063 of 2014
BETWEEN: ANTONIO MICHAEL PANETTA
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 41 of 2015
BETWEEN: PAUL YERBURY
Plaintiff
AND
HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Applications by defendant for judgment pursuant to O 16 r 1 - Alternatively to strike out statement of claim pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16, O 20 r 19

Result:

Application to strike out the cause of action referred to as the trade union term dismissed

Representation:

CIV 3056 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3057 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3058 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3059 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3060 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3061 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 3063 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

CIV 41 of 2015

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr R Singh
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

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

David Clarke Air Conditioning Pty Ltd ATF David Clarke Air Conditioning Trust v Quann [2016] WASC 73
Harvey Industries Group…

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 Jones v Harvey Industries 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: [2019] WADC 161
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Jones v Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Jones, who initiated proceedings against the defendant, Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Jones sought compensation for injuries allegedly sustained during his employment with the defendant. The defendant sought to have the plaintiff's claim dismissed and for the statement of claim to be struck out, arguing that the claim was statute-barred and that the plaintiff's evidence was inadequate.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the applicable statutory provisions and whether the plaintiff's statement of claim contained sufficient evidence to proceed. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred as it was brought outside the statutory limitation period. Additionally, the defendant sought to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious, and was otherwise an abuse of process.

The court considered the applicable statutory provisions regarding the limitation period for personal injury claims and whether the plaintiff's claim was within that period. The court also assessed whether the statement of claim contained sufficient particulars to establish a reasonable cause of action and whether it was an abuse of process. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred and that the statement of claim contained sufficient evidence to proceed. The court dismissed the defendant's applications for judgment and to strike out the statement of claim.

Orders