Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)—Action at law independently of compensation legislation—Prescribed period for bringing action—Extension—Sufficient cause—Burden of proof—Discretion—Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1960 (N.S.W.), s. 63 (3).
Decisions
The following judgments were delivered:- DIXON C.J. This is an appeal brought as of right from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The order which is under appeal is for the dismissal of an appeal from an order made by Wallace J. The order of Wallace J. was made on a reference from a decision of the Prothonotary on an application made pursuant to s. 63 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1960 (N.S.W.) for an extension of time within which the appellant could - notwithstanding that she had applied for workers' compensation and had received workers' compensation to an extent - exercise the right which s. 63(1) nevertheless gives her of pursuing what was alleged to be a cause of action at common law, in respect of the injury which she had received. (at p470)
2. The Prothonotary, Wallace J. and the Full Court all purporting to exercise a discretion, refused the application. The appeal was brought to this Court on the ground that the Full Court, being the tribunal appealed from, was misguided in the manner in which it approached the exercise of the discretion and that we should therefore review the exercise of the discretion. (at p470)
3. Section 63 has a long history and has been the subject not only of various decisions but of various amendments, but it has stood in its present form for a very considerable time. I regret to say that this Court was rendered, some years ago, only too familiar with the difficulties to which s. 63 then gave rise. After Latter v. Muswellbrook Corporation (1936) 56 CLR 422 we heard little of the provision. What s. 63 does in its present form is not really intricate. It assumes, as of course one would suppose, the existence of a claim for workers' compensation conferred by the anterior sections of the Act. Sub-section (1) then says, "Nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer where the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible." (at p470)
4. Sub-section (2) goes on, "In such a case the worker may proceed both under this Act and independently of this Act, but where he obtains judgment against his employer independently of this Act he shall not be entitled to any compensation under this Act other than compensation paid to him before such judgment." (at p470)
5. It is convenient to stop there for the moment in saying what s. 63 does, and to state that in this case the present appellant and her husband were in process…
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.
Continue reading Klein v Domus Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Klein v Domus Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 54
Case
[1963] HCA 54
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Klein (the applicant) sought to restrain Domus Pty Ltd (the respondent) from continuing to use a trade mark that Klein alleged was an infringement of his own registered trade mark. The dispute concerned the use of the word "Domus" in relation to building and construction services. Klein argued that the respondent's use of the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public, thereby infringing his exclusive rights under the relevant trade marks legislation. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent's use of the trade mark "Domus" constituted an infringement of the applicant's registered trade mark "Domus". This required the court to consider the likelihood of deception or confusion in the marketplace, a key element in trade mark infringement claims. The court had to assess the similarity between the marks, the nature of the goods or services in relation to which the marks were used, and the circumstances of their use.
The High Court ultimately found in favour of the respondent, Domus Pty Ltd. The majority of the court reasoned that while the marks were identical, the services offered by both parties were sufficiently distinct. The court considered that the word "Domus" was descriptive of the services (relating to a house or home) and that in the context of building and construction, the likelihood of consumers being deceived or confused into believing that the respondent's services originated from or were connected with the applicant was not established. The court applied the principles of trade mark law concerning the assessment of likelihood of confusion, taking into account the specific nature of the respective businesses and the ordinary intelligence of the purchasing public.