Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ljubicic v Heat and Control Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 982 Hearing dates: 11 August 2023 Date of orders: 11 August 2023 Decision date: 11 August 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: I make the following orders:
(1) pursuant to s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), leave is granted to the plaintiff to rely on the report of Mr Luke Murphy dated 5 October 2022;
(2) pursuant to r 64 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), leave is granted to the plaintiff to file the further amended statement of claim;
(3) see para [78] for further case management orders.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Amendment – where plaintiff seeks to amend particulars – where plaintiff seeks to rely on an expert report received after pre-filing statement – s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) – meaning of “materially different” to pre-filing statement – meaning of "the material concerned" which was not reasonably available to the party at the time of the pre-filing statement – whether the substance of the material was reasonably available at the time of the pre-filing statement
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 64
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 316, 318
Cases Cited: Petreski v The Ors Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 417
Skinner v The State of New South Wales [2021] NSWDC 36
Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1452
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Marijana Ljubicic (Plaintiff)
Heat and Control Pty Limited ACN 009 742 803 (First Defendant)
George Weston Foods Limited ACN 008 429 632 (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Semmler OAM KC with Mr J Lee (Plaintiff)
Mr G Newton (Second Defendant)
Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Wotton + Kearney (First Defendant/Interested Party)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Second Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/00365595 Publication restriction: None
REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
-
On 10 June 2018, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries in an accident which occurred at the premises of George Weston Foods, the second defendant. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was employed by the second defendant.
-
The plaintiff was working with other members of the second defendant's production team on a machine known as a pappadum processing system (“PPS”) when there was an explosion, causing hot oil to be thrown over the plaintiff. She sustained severe burns and has not worked since the accident.
-
The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the first defendant, Heat and Control Pty Limited, by way of a statement of claim filed on 24 December 2020. Subsequent to the filing of the statement of claim, the first defendant joined the second defendant to the proceedings by way of a cross-claim. The proceedings were then case managed in the usual proper and competent way by the Registrar.
-
The plaintiff then sought to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ljubicic v Heat and Control 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWSC 982
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the meaning of "materially different" and "the material concerned" as outlined in section 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the substance of the material was reasonably available at the time of the pre-filing statement and whether the content of the report was materially different from what was previously stated. The court also considered whether the amendment would prejudice the defendant's ability to respond adequately to the new evidence.
The court found that the report was materially different from the pre-filing statement as it introduced new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the pre-filing statement. The substance of the material was not reasonably available, and the new evidence had the potential to significantly alter the nature of the plaintiff's claim. The court held that permitting the amendment would cause substantial injustice to the defendant, as it would be prejudiced in its ability to respond to the new evidence. Consequently, the court refused the plaintiff's application to amend the particulars of his claim.
The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's application to amend the particulars of his claim was dismissed. The plaintiff was not permitted to rely on the expert report received after the pre-filing statement. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the pre-filing statement accurately reflects the substance of the claim to prevent unnecessary prejudice to the defendant.
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.