Matinca v Coalroc (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 1532

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matinca v Coalroc (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1532
Hearing dates: 31 May; 1 and 2 June 2021
Date of orders: 2 June 2021
Decision date: 02 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Admit the claim form MFI 4 as Exhibit 3

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – business record – where plaintiff’s father made representations on a form contrary to plaintiff’s present case – whether father had or reasonably be supposed to have had knowledge of asserted fact – whether knowledge directly or indirectly supplied to father – no evidence to support contention
EVIDENCE – admissions – whether son adopted his father’s statements by signing the form – where son had no recollection of events – whether it is reasonably open to find the son made the admission – form admitted

Legislation Cited:
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 10
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 69, 78, 81, 87, 88

Cases Cited:
Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36
Lustre Hosiery Ltd v York (1935) 54 CLR 134; [1935] HCA 71

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Troy Anthony Matinca (Plaintiff)
Coalroc Contractors Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Cummings SC with P. Williams (Plaintiff)
M. McCulloch SC with D. Stanton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Burke Mead Lawyers (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/111036
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

I am dealing with the question of the admissibility of MFI 4 which is a workers compensation claim form submitted in relation to the plaintiff's accident, the subject of these proceedings for damages, which occurred on his way home from work at the Ulan West coalmine near Mudgee to his place of abode at Warners Bay. As he was a worker employed in or about a coalmine the former journey provisions contained in s 10 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (NSW) continued to apply to him notwithstanding the repeal of that provision in respect of workers generally.
It is not in dispute in this case that the plaintiff suffered quite serious personal injury in what I have referred to already in a different judgment as a single-car collision which occurred, as I have said, on his way home from work, on 17 April 2016 on Macquarie Street, Warners Bay, about 10 minutes from his home at Mount Hutton. It is also not in dispute that as a result of that accident and the injuries sustained, the plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury of some severity and as a result has no memory of the accident or, indeed, of events preceding it or for quite some time after it. MFI 4, as I have said, is the workers compensation claim form, and I infer from looking at it that it was, in the first instance, signed by the plaintiff’s father on 28 April 2016 at a time when he, that is to say the plaintiff, may yet have been subject to post-traumatic amnesia.
The…

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 Matinca v Coalroc (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Matinca v Coalroc (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1532
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1532
Decision Date: 02 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matinca v Coalroc (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the admissibility of certain evidence. The plaintiff sought to challenge a form that was signed by his father, which contained representations that were inconsistent with the plaintiff's current position. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the form did not accurately reflect the knowledge of his father at the relevant time and that there was no evidence to support the contention that the father had the necessary knowledge. The plaintiff also contended that he did not adopt his father's statements by signing the form, as he had no recollection of the events in question.

The court was required to determine whether the father had the requisite knowledge to make the representations on the form and whether the plaintiff had adopted his father's statements by signing the document. The court also needed to consider whether it was reasonably open to find that the plaintiff had made the admission by signing the form. The court examined the evidence presented and considered the circumstances surrounding the signing of the form. The court found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's contention that his father lacked the necessary knowledge and that it was reasonably open to find that the plaintiff had adopted his father's statements by signing the form.

The court held that the form was admissible as evidence in the case. The court found that the plaintiff's father had the requisite knowledge to make the representations on the form and that the plaintiff had adopted his father's statements by signing the document. The court held that it was reasonably open to find that the plaintiff had made the admission by signing the form, despite his lack of recollection of the events in question. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the signing of the form. The court's decision was a significant one, as it had important implications for the outcome of the case.

Orders