Jones v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2002] WADC 207

JONES -v- SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR [2002] WADC 207

Last Update: 10/10/2002

JONES -v- SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR [2002] WADC 207
Link to Appeal:	[2003] WASCA 225
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WADC 207
Case No:	CIV:2833/2000	Heard:	16 SEPTEMBER 2002
Coram:	MARTINO DCJ	Delivered:	03/10/2002
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	First defendant not plaintiff's deemed employer Second defendant is plaintiff's deemed employer
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	BRADLEY IVAN EDWARD JONES SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD WESFARMERS LIMITED SEELEY AUTO ELECTRICAL PTY LTD DON PATRICK BINGHAM t/as DP BINGHAM & ASSOCIATES
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Statutory interpretation Deemed employer
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 93E, s 175
Case References:	Andrews v Andrews & Mears [1908] 2 KB 567 Container Handlers Pty Ltd v Insurance Commission of Western Australia (2001) 25 WAR 42 Frauenfelder v Reid & Ors (1963) 109 CLR 42 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 163 Moir v Schrader (1936) 56 CLR 310 Powers v Maher (1959) 103 CLR 478 State Government Insurance Commission v Sinfein Pty Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 434 Textron Pacific Ltd v Collector of Customs (Qld) (1987) 78 ALR 547 The Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110 Boath v The Central Queensland Meat Export Company Proprietary Limited and State Government Insurance Office (Queensland) [1986] 1 Qd R 139 Bobbey v W M Crosbie & Co Ltd (1915) 114 LT 244 Bryce v Denclean, unreported; Conciliation and Review Directorate; No 55/95; 24 July 1995 Dittmar v Owners of Ship V 593 [1909] 1 KB 389 Hayes v S J Thompson & Co (1913) 6 BWCC 130 Hockley v West London Timber and Joinery Company [1914] 3 KB 1013 Mowling v Justices of Hawthorn (1891) 17 VLR 150 Skates v Jones & Co [1910] 2 KB 903 Spiers v Elderslie Steamship Co Ltd [1909] SC 1259 Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (1989) 85 ALR 173 Turner and Others v York Motors Proprietory Limited (1951) 85 CLR 55

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : JONES -v- SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR [2002] WADC 207 CORAM : MARTINO DCJ HEARD : 16 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 3 OCTOBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2833 of 2000 BETWEEN : BRADLEY IVAN EDWARD JONES

Plaintiff

AND

SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

First Defendant

WESFARMERS LIMITED

Second Defendant

SEELEY AUTO ELECTRICAL PTY LTD

First Third Party

DON PATRICK BINGHAM t/as DP BINGHAM & ASSOCIATES

Second Third Party

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Statutory interpretation - Deemed employer

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981,s93E, s 175

Result:

First defendant not plaintiff's deemed employer
Second defendant is plaintiff's deemed employer

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T N Cullity

First Defendant : Mr G T Stubbs

Second Defendant : Mr D R Clyne

First Third Party :…

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 SNF (Australia) 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: [2002] WADC 207
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd concerned the identification of a deemed employer under the workers' compensation framework. The plaintiff, Jones, sought compensation from the first defendant, SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd, arguing it was his employer. Jones contended that the second defendant, SNF Pty Ltd, was the deemed employer. The second defendant argued it was not the employer but rather the first defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the identification of a deemed employer under workers' compensation laws. The court needed to determine whether the first or second defendant was the deemed employer responsible for the plaintiff's compensation claim. The relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) were examined to ascertain the correct interpretation. The court considered the legislative intent and the relationship between the companies and the plaintiff.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the statutory provisions required a specific relationship between the employer and the employee for deemed employer status to be applicable. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the second defendant was indeed the deemed employer as it had the requisite relationship with the plaintiff. The court held that the first defendant was not the deemed employer because it did not meet the statutory criteria. The court's interpretation aligned with the legislative intent, focusing on the nature of the relationship and the statutory requirements.

The court ordered that the first defendant was not the plaintiff's deemed employer and that the second defendant was the deemed employer for the purposes of the plaintiff's workers' compensation claim. This determination resolved the dispute and clarified the legal relationship between the parties under the statutory framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

First defendant not plaintiff's deemed employer

Second defendant is plaintiff's deemed employer

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.