Legal Research
Cases
Kerridge v Monsfelt

Kerridge v Monsfelt

Case [2009] VCC 154

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Kerridge v Monsfelt Pty Ltd [2009] VCC 154
Case: [2009] VCC 154
Decision Date: 13 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

Actions

Citations

Kerridge v Monsfelt Pty Ltd [2009] VCC 154

Most Recent Citation

Byrnes v RMIT [2010] VMC 50

Cases Citing This Decision

Pilbrow v The University of Melbourne [2022] VMC 8
Citation 1

…niversity and, further, contended there was capacity for pre-injury employment with another employer in accordance with Kerridge v Monsfelt.[3] [3] [2009] VCC 154.…
Hell v Parks Victoria [2022] VMC 1
Citation 2

…[1] [2009] VCC 154…
Nyaoch v Berry Street Victoria Incorporated [2021] VMC 15
Citation 3

…[6] [2009] VCC 154.…
French v Jolson Corp Pty Ltd [2020] VMC 11
Citation 4

…the theft of computer files. He raised other aspects relating to her alleged incapacity including a "Kerridge-type" defence (see, Kerridge v Monsfelt [2009] VCC 154).…
Vassallo v Intermotor Sales [2017] VMC 16
Citation 5

…y payments because of the termination of his employment for misconduct pursuant to s.185 of the Act. He referred in particular to Kerridge v Monsfelt [2009] VCC 154 at para 80. Also, he referred to two matters in the Magistrates' Court in which the court dealt with a similar issue namely Parry (per O’Brien M) and…
Re: Ilir Sadiku v Trussmakers (Vic) Pty Ltd (WorkCover) [2015] VMC 20
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…nt submitted that the plaintiff’s application should be regarded governed by the decision of His Honour Judge Bowman in Kerridge v Monsfelt Pty Ltd [2009] VCC 154. The plaintiff submitted to the contrary and relied upon a decision also Judge Bowman in Hewitt v Southern Health [2013] VCC 1247 in which his Honour d…
Castellucci v Sisters of St Joseph [2012] VMC 40
Citation 7

…(delivered 8 March 2010), I respectfully agree with His Honour Judge Bowman as to what is known as the "Kerridge" principle (see, Kerridge v Monsfelt [2009] VCC 154) and his interpretation as to the effect of the High Court's decision in Arnotts v. Yacob 155 CLR 171.…
Byrnes v RMIT [2010] VMC 50
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…As to her undoubtedly inability to return to work at RMIT at Bundoora, the recent County Court decision of Kerridge v. Monsfelt [2009] VCC 154 (per Judge Bowman) is relevant. With respect, I agree with His Honour's analysis that such an inability to return to a pre‑injury place of employment does not amount to an…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Ansett Australia Ltd v Taylor [2006] VSCA 171
Citation 1

…ed to the grounds set out in that notice. 81 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Ansett Australia Ltd v Taylor [2006] VSCA 171 does not apply to the situation relating to weekly payments. Various decisions of the County Court are more relevant. The plaintiff continues to bear the burden of proof in relation to…
Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob [1985] HCA 2
Citation 2

…t the particular workplace. What is required pursuant to the decision of the High Court in Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob (1985) 155 CLR 171 is that, when considering the meaning of “current work capacity” or “partial incapacity”, what is looked at is the class of pre- injury employment. The labour market tha…
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 9
Citation 3

…ce from either the hospital or Dr Bennie, I was entitled to draw the type of inference referred to in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298). Whatever the reason for the hospitalisation, there was no challenge to the proposition that the plaintiff was in hospital for three days in November 2006. 85 It also cannot be dispute…
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
Citation 4

…the hospital or Dr Bennie, I was entitled to draw the type of inference referred to in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298). Whatever the reason for the hospitalisation, there was no challenge to the proposition that the plaintiff was in hospital for three days in November 2006. 85 It also cannot be disputed that signi…

AI Chat coming soon