CITATION: Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 37 HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
28 April 2003JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Giles JA at 4; Cripps AJA at 163 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: Proceedings in Dust Diseases Tribunal - appeal from Tribunal only in point of law. South Australian parties, tort and venue - appeal if action in South Australian court not so fettered - whether in those circumstances Tribunal had no jurisdiction - or alternatively whether is unfettered right of appeal from Tribunal - distinction between jurisdiction and choice of law - no conflicting exercise of appellate jurisdiction - s118 of Constitution had no relevant application -- in any event appellate rights procedural and South Australian appellate rights did not arise - answers no. Whether New South Wales legislature lacked competence to invest the Tribunal with extra-territorial jurisdiction defined by the limited right of appeal - no offence to federal structure - answer no. Adjournment if proceedings involve a matter arising under the Constitution - whether proceedings in Tribunal did so - whether error in declining to adjourn proceedings - analysis of issue raised - answers no. Application for stay on forum non conveniens grounds - based on inherent jurisdiction - stay declined - on appeal error asserted in exercise of jurisdiction under Service and Execution of Process Act - query whether open so to assert - whether stay should have been ordered - on either basis no error. Forseeability of risk from exposure to asbestos - whether question of exposure to quantities below then accepted exposure standard or question of any low level of exposure - on existing authority, the latter - no error in Tribunal's approach. Findings of breach of duty of care - various findings challenged - not appeal in point of law. CASES CITED: Algama v Minister for Immigration and Cultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1884;
Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v X (2000) NSWLR 653;
Australian Solar Mesh Sales Pty Ltd v Anderson (2000) 101 FCR 1;
Beavis v Apthorpe (1962) 80 WN (NSW) 852;
Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes (1997) 42 NSWLR
307;
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112;
Collings Construction Co Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commision (1998) 43 NSWLR 131;
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389;
The Commonwealth v The Limerick Steamship Co Ltd (1924) 35 CLR 69;
Commonwealth v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389;
CSR Ltd v Young (1998) 16 NSWCCR 56;
Dennis v Watt (1943) 43 SR (NSW) 32;
E M Baldwin & Son Pty Ltd v Plane (1998) 17 NSWCCR 434;
Re Finlayson; ex parte Finlayson (1997) 72 ALJR 73;
Goliath Portland Cement Co Ltd v Bengtell (1994) 33 NSWLR 414;
Harlander Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v State of New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 323;
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499;
Green v Jones (1979) 2 NSWLR 812
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes 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.
Details
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Julia Farr Services Inc appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales from a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal. The dispute concerned proceedings brought in the Tribunal by Mr Hayes, alleging negligence and breach of duty of care arising from his exposure to asbestos. The appeal raised a number of complex jurisdictional and procedural questions, including whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the matter, the scope of appellate rights from the Tribunal, and the legislative competence of the New South Wales Parliament to grant the Tribunal extra-territorial jurisdiction.
The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the proceedings involved a South Australian party and tort, and whether there was an unfettered right of appeal from the Tribunal. The Court also considered whether the New South Wales legislature had the competence to invest the Tribunal with extra-territorial jurisdiction, and whether the Tribunal had erred in declining to adjourn proceedings on the basis that they involved a matter arising under the Constitution. Further issues included whether a stay of proceedings should have been granted on forum non conveniens grounds, and whether the Tribunal had erred in its findings regarding the foreseeability of risk from asbestos exposure.
The Court reasoned that the distinction between jurisdiction and choice of law was critical, and that the South Australian party and tort did not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It held that the appellate rights from the Tribunal were procedural and did not arise under South Australian law, rendering s 118 of the Constitution irrelevant. The Court found no offence to the federal structure in the New South Wales legislature investing the Tribunal with extra-territorial jurisdiction, and that the proceedings did not involve a matter arising under the Constitution, thus no error in declining to adjourn. The Court also determined that there was no error in the Tribunal declining to grant a stay on forum non conveniens grounds, and that the Tribunal's approach to the foreseeability of risk from asbestos exposure was consistent with existing authority. Challenges to findings of breach of duty of care were dismissed as not being points of law.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the proceedings involved a South Australian party and tort, and whether there was an unfettered right of appeal from the Tribunal. The Court also considered whether the New South Wales legislature had the competence to invest the Tribunal with extra-territorial jurisdiction, and whether the Tribunal had erred in declining to adjourn proceedings on the basis that they involved a matter arising under the Constitution. Further issues included whether a stay of proceedings should have been granted on forum non conveniens grounds, and whether the Tribunal had erred in its findings regarding the foreseeability of risk from asbestos exposure.
The Court reasoned that the distinction between jurisdiction and choice of law was critical, and that the South Australian party and tort did not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It held that the appellate rights from the Tribunal were procedural and did not arise under South Australian law, rendering s 118 of the Constitution irrelevant. The Court found no offence to the federal structure in the New South Wales legislature investing the Tribunal with extra-territorial jurisdiction, and that the proceedings did not involve a matter arising under the Constitution, thus no error in declining to adjourn. The Court also determined that there was no error in the Tribunal declining to grant a stay on forum non conveniens grounds, and that the Tribunal's approach to the foreseeability of risk from asbestos exposure was consistent with existing authority. Challenges to findings of breach of duty of care were dismissed as not being points of law.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.