Matthews v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police Force) - [2023] NSWSC 1419

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matthews v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police Force) [2023] NSWSC 1419
Hearing dates: 26 October 2023
Decision date: 21 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for applicant in part;
(2)   Strike out Statement of Claim;
(3)   Further orders reserved.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Motion for summary disposal – alternative Motion to strike out pleadings – workplace injury – meaning of “other tort” – need to specify in Pre-Filing Statement – to the extent proceedings not struck out – need to re-plead

Legislation Cited:
Crown Proceedings Act 1988 (NSW)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.28
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 2A, 66, 151
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 121, 127, 250, 281, 282, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 318, Pt 7

Cases Cited:
A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10
Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Ltd v Brain (1935) 53 CLR 343; [1935] HCA 30
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (2003) 57 NSWLR 113; [2003] NSWCA 91
Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 134; [1999] FCA 773
GM v R (District Court (NSW), Williams SC DCJ, 26 August 2021, unrep)
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307; [1995] HCA 65
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Quazi v Quazi [1980] AC 744
Stryke Corporation Pty Ltd v Miskovic [2007] NSWCA 72
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Glenn Matthews (Plaintiff/Respondent)
State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police Force) (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A E Gauja (Plaintiff/Respondent)
D E Baran (Defendant/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Somerville Laundry Lomax Solicitors (Plaintiff/Respondent)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Defendant/Applicant)

File Number(s): 2023/00176921

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: By Motion, notice of which was filed on 20 September 2022, the defendant seeks orders summarily dismissing the proceedings and consequential orders. The defendant relies upon s 318(1)(a) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (hereinafter “the Act”) and r 14.28(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (hereinafter “UCPR”). The defendant also, and in the alternative, seeks to have the Court strike out the Statement of Claim.

Substantive Proceedings

The plaintiff, Glenn Matthews, is a former police officer who, in his Statement of Claim, alleges that he suffered mental harm as result of his employment. The mental harm alleged is post-traumatic stress disorder (hereinafter “PTSD”), major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder.
Mr Matthews was employed by the New South Wales Police Force between 30 August 2002 and 20 September 2022, at which point he was medically discharged. Mr Matthews alleges that he sustained mental harm due to harassment and threatening or bullying behaviour by…

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 Matthews v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police...

Details

AGLC: Matthews v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police Force) [2023] NSWSC 1419
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1419
Decision Date: 21 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Matthews v State of New South Wales (New South Wales Police Force), the plaintiff, Mr Matthews, sought damages for injuries sustained during his employment as a police officer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, the State of New South Wales, was vicariously liable for the actions of a colleague who caused his injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to consider two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the plaintiff's claim constituted an "other tort" within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Secondly, if so, whether the plaintiff had adequately specified this in his Pre-Filing Statement, as required by section 10(2) of the same Act. The court also needed to determine whether, to the extent the proceedings were not struck out, the plaintiff was required to re-plead his case.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim did indeed constitute an "other tort" as defined in section 10 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). However, the plaintiff had not specified this in his Pre-Filing Statement, resulting in a failure to comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court struck out the plaintiff's pleadings to the extent that they constituted an "other tort." Nevertheless, the court held that the plaintiff could re-plead his case, provided he complied with the statutory requirements and adequately specified the nature of his claim.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's pleadings were struck out to the extent that they constituted an "other tort," and the plaintiff was given leave to re-plead his case within 28 days, provided he complied with the statutory requirements. The court also noted that if the plaintiff failed to re-plead within the specified timeframe, the defendant could apply for summary disposal of the proceedings.

Orders