Lee v Metalcorp Recyclers Pty Ltd - [2006] WADC 117

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LEE -v- METALCORP RECYCLERS PTY LTD [2006] WADC 117

CORAM: PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING

HEARD: 26 JULY 2006

DELIVERED : 11 AUGUST 2006

FILE NO/S: CIV 1186 of 2005

BETWEEN: KRISTIN LEE
Plaintiff
AND
METALCORP RECYCLERS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Stay of proceedings - Workers' Compensation - Whether defendant deemed employer

Legislation:

Compensation and Injury Management Act 1891 (WA)

Rules of the Supreme Court

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr C Prast
Defendant: Mr M P Cornes

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Slater & Gordon
Defendant: Minter Ellison

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

Berg v Hamersley Iron Pty Limited [2005] WADC 3
Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1908) 7 CLR 76
Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd v Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd (No 5) (1997) 18 WAR 334
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Foster v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture [2006] WASCA 95
Frauenfelder v Reid (1963) 109 CLR 42
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1983) 44 ALR 365
Mikkelsen v United Group Limited [2005] WADC 24

Case(s) also cited:

Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 163

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING: In the present application the defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff's claim be stayed pending the plaintiff obtaining a determination of his degree of disability pursuant to Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) ("WCIMA") s 93D. The plaintiff resists the application on the basis that the relevant threshold in WCIMA s 93D does not apply in the circumstances of this case, the defendant not being the plaintiff's employer or deemed employer pursuant to WCIMA s 175.
The plaintiff commenced this action in May 2005 by writ endorsed with a statement of claim. From the statement of claim, it appears that the plaintiff's case is that on 31 May 2001, whilst the plaintiff was in the course of this employment with Cisco's Transport as a truck driver, a forklift driven by an employee of the defendant struck the plaintiff in the area of the right leg causing injury. The plaintiff goes on to plead that the collision was caused by the negligence of the employee for whose negligence the defendant is vicariously liable, and that as a result of this collision, the plaintiff has sustained various injuries for which he claims damages.
For reasons that are not apparent on the face of the file, no memorandum of appearance was filed until 19 April 2006. The present application was filed shortly afterwards on 25 May 2006.

Factual background

The defendant filed four affidavits in support of its application. The first is an affidavit of David Anthony Edward Hopkins, sworn 23 May 2006 Mr Hopkins is the State Manager of the defendant. The second is sworn by John Frederick William Bailiff, the Administration Manager of Pep…

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 Lee v Metalcorp Recyclers 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: [2006] WADC 117
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lee v Metalcorp Recyclers Pty Ltd, the applicant, Lee, sought a stay of proceedings against the respondent, Metalcorp Recyclers Pty Ltd, contending that the respondent was deemed to be his employer under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Lee argued that as Metalcorp was deemed to be his employer, it should be liable for his compensation claim, and proceedings against the true employer should be stayed. The court was required to determine whether Metalcorp was indeed the employer under the Act and whether the proceedings against it should be stayed. The legal issues at the heart of the case were whether Metalcorp could be considered the employer for the purposes of the Act and, if so, whether this would necessitate a stay of the proceedings against it.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the relationship between Lee and Metalcorp. It examined the statutory framework to determine whether Metalcorp fulfilled the criteria to be deemed an employer. The court also reviewed case law to understand how similar situations had been treated in the past. Ultimately, the court found that Metalcorp did not meet the statutory definition of an employer under the Act, and therefore could not be deemed to be Lee's employer for the purposes of the claim. Consequently, the court held that the proceedings against Metalcorp should not be stayed. The court's reasoning was based on the specific language of the Act and the nature of the relationship between Lee and Metalcorp, which did not align with the statutory requirements for deeming an employer.

As a result of the court's findings, Lee's application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory language and the specific facts of the case, leading to the conclusion that Metalcorp was not the employer for the purposes of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. This determination allowed the proceedings against Metalcorp to continue, as it was not deemed to be Lee's employer under the Act.

Orders