Majid Alaee v Eptec Pty Limited - [2015] HCASL 192

MAJID ALAEE
v
EPTEC PTY LIMITED
[2015] HCASL 192
S47/2015

The applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales seeking damages for personal injury suffered in the course of his employment by the respondent. The applicant and a co-worker were working on a mobile elevated work platform, commonly known as a "cherry picker". The applicant's co-worker began manipulating the platform's controls, which caused the platform to shake violently and the applicant to be injured. Section 3A(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) provided, in relevant part, that the Act applied only to an "injury ... caused by the fault of the ... driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle and only if the ... injury is a result of and is caused ... during: (a) the driving of the vehicle".
The District Court (Garling ADCJ) gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff's injuries were the result of and caused during the 'driving' of a vehicle, being the platform. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (McColl and Macfarlan JJA and Sackville AJA) allowed an appeal by the respondent, holding that the applicant's injuries were not the result of, or caused during, the 'driving' of a vehicle because the co-worker's manipulation of the platform's controls did not engage its locomotive functions.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal and an extension of time in which to make that application. The application raises no question of principle which would warrant the grant of special leave. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time. We would refuse special leave to appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

V.M. Bell
4 November 2015 S.J. Gageler

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 Majid Alaee v Eptec 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

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: [2015] HCASL 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Majid Alaee v Eptec Pty Limited involved an application for special leave to appeal by the applicant, Majid Alaee, against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Alaee sought damages for personal injuries he suffered during his employment by Eptec Pty Limited. The incident occurred when Alaee was operating a mobile elevated work platform, colloquially known as a "cherry picker," with a co-worker. The platform shook violently due to the co-worker's manipulation of its controls, resulting in Alaee's injuries. The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3A(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), specifically whether Alaee's injuries qualified as an accident covered by the Act. The District Court held that the injuries were covered, while the Court of Appeal disagreed, asserting that the injuries were not caused during the 'driving' of the vehicle, as defined by the Act.

The High Court evaluated the Court of Appeal's reasoning, which held that the co-worker's manipulation of the platform's controls did not engage its locomotive functions, thus not constituting 'driving' as per the statutory definition. The Court of Appeal concluded that Alaee's injuries did not fall within the scope of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. The High Court found that the application for special leave did not present any significant legal principle warranting special leave. Consequently, the Court deemed it futile to grant the extension of time requested and refused the application for special leave to appeal. As a result, the High Court directed the Registrar to prepare an order dismissing the application with costs.

Orders