District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MacDonald v Inglis Equipment Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 59 Hearing dates: 13 and 14 March 2017 Date of orders: 23 March 2017 Decision date: 23 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend the statement of claim dismissed.
(2) Statement of claim struck out and dismissed.
(3) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs of the application and of the proceedings, with liberty to apply.
(4) Exhibits retained until further order.Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - motor accident – defendant leased forklift to plaintiff’s employer for five years – plaintiff injured when struck by forklift operated by a fellow employee in the employer’s premises – plaintiff brings proceedings against defendant on the basis that his fellow employee was the defendant’s servant or agent - whether the defendant had parted with possession of the forklift for the purposes of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 4(1)(b) - whether defendant “entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle” – defendant not in possession of forklift
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under s 65 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to amend statement of claim to plead defendant’s failure to repair or negligent repair of forklift – whether proposed amendment based on the same (or substantially the same) facts as those giving rise to the currently pleaded cause of action – prejudice, delay and discretion issues – application for leave to amend refusedLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 65
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 3B, 4, 10A and 112
Motor Accidents Compensation Regulation 2015 (NSW), r 20(e)(i)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 4(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4Cases Cited: Bon Arthur Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) v Caruana [2013] NSWCA 101
Ewing v Times Newspapers Ltd [2011] NIQB 63
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Greenwood v Papademetri [2007] NSWCA 221
H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli (1979) 30 ALR 181
O’Dwyer v Chief Constable of the RUC [1997] NI 403
Perera v Gemworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 19
Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Tetra Pak Marketing Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1014
Szanto v Bainton [2011] NSWSC 985
Treadtel International Pty Ltd v Cocco [2016] NSWCA 360
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Thearle [2016] NSWCA 303
Younan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 335Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Graham MacDonald
Defendant: Inglis Equipment Pty LimitedRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mr C Hart
Defendant: Mr J Sleight
Plaintiff: Michael Evers & Co
Defendant: Gillis Delaney Lawyers
File Number(s): 2016/218102 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The application before the court
-
By notice of motion filed on 23 February 2017, the defendant brings an application for summary dismissal of these proceedings, seeking the following orders:
The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW).
The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.
The plaintiff to pay the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MacDonald v Inglis Equipment Pty Limited 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
- [2017] NSWDC 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Inglis Equipment had parted with possession of the forklift for the purposes of section 4(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) and whether Inglis Equipment was entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle. Inglis Equipment contended that it had not parted with possession of the forklift as it was not in possession of it at the time of the accident.
The court held that Inglis Equipment had not parted with possession of the forklift, as it was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court further found that Inglis Equipment was not entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle, as it had leased the forklift to the plaintiff's employer. Therefore, the court held that Inglis Equipment was not liable for the negligence of its servant or agent. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim to plead the defendant's failure to repair or negligent repair of the forklift, finding that the proposed amendment was not based on the same facts as the currently pleaded cause of action.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the statement of claim and struck out and dismissed the statement of claim. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application and of the proceedings, with liberty to apply. The exhibits were retained until further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend the statement of claim dismissed.
(2) Statement of claim struck out and dismissed.
(3) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs of the application and of the proceedings, with liberty to apply.
(4) Exhibits retained until further order.
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.