McVey v G.J & L.J Smith Pty Ltd - [2024] VSCA 4

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2024 0005

WILLIAM MCVEY	Applicant
v
G.J & L.J SMITH PTY LTD	First Respondent
VICTORIAN WORK COVER AUTHORITY	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KENNEDY JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 February 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 4

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – Applications – Filing – Power of Registrar –– Registrar refused to accept documents for filing – Applicant sought judicial direction to Registrar to accept documents for filing – Documents irregular – Documents do not comply with Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Application for direction refused – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 64.43(1), (2), (5).

---

Counsel

No attendance and no written submissions

Solicitors

No attendance and no written submissions

KENNEDY JA:

The applicant seeks an order that the Registrar be directed to accept his application dated 19 December 2023 for filing.
For reasons expressed below, the application will be refused.

Background

The applicant had a work-related accident in 1999. In 2001, he lodged a claim (‘first claim’) under s 98C of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the ‘Act’) in respect of the physical injuries he had suffered. The second respondent (VWA) accepted liability and he received lump sum compensation and then weekly payments.
In 2008, he lodged a further claim for compensation (‘second claim’) for permanent disability in relation to his schizophrenia condition. The VWA rejected this claim on the basis that s 104B(5AA) of the Act only permitted one claim for compensation in respect of the injuries that the applicant suffered in the accident. He then (through his litigation guardian) brought a proceeding in the County Court challenging this rejection. On 21 January 2011, the County Court dismissed the proceeding.[1]
[1]McVey v G J & L J Smith Pty Ltd [2011] VCC 135.
On 17 December 2012, this Court allowed the applicant’s appeal from the County Court.[2] The Court found that the Act did not prevent a second claim being lodged under s 98C if it is proved that the claimant had a mental incapacity at the time of lodging the prior claim, and that, given the uncontested evidence, the judge ought to have found that the applicant suffered from a mental incapacity at the time of lodging the first claim. The Court made orders, inter alia, that the respondents ‘assess the applicant’s [second claim] in accordance with law’.
[2]McVey v G L & L J Smith Pty Ltd (2012) 37 VR 433; [2012] VSCA 312 (‘Reasons’).
On 19 December 2023, the applicant submitted two documents for filing as follows:
(a)application other than for leave to appeal which names the abovenamed respondents; and
(b)Court of Appeal order dated 17 December 2012, together with the Reasons for decision.
By the proposed application, the applicant seeks, amongst other things, the following relief:
I wish to apply for the following order: THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE FOUND TO…

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 McVey v G.J & L.J Smith 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

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: [2024] VSCA 4
Decision Date: 14 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the applicant, McVey, and the respondent, G.J & L.J Smith Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the refusal of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland to accept certain documents for filing. McVey sought judicial direction from the court to compel the Registrar to accept the documents, which were deemed irregular and non-compliant with the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The core legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Registrar had the authority to refuse to accept the documents and if the applicant's application for judicial direction was valid and should be granted.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, specifically rule 64.43, which outlines the circumstances under which the Registrar may refuse to accept documents for filing. The court found that the Registrar had the discretion to refuse to accept documents that do not comply with the rules. Additionally, the court considered the nature of the irregularity in the documents and determined that the non-compliance was significant enough to justify the Registrar's refusal. Consequently, the court held that the application for judicial direction was not well-founded, and the Registrar's decision to refuse to accept the documents was upheld.

The court's decision was grounded in the procedural framework set out by the rules, and the court found no basis to interfere with the Registrar's exercise of discretion. The applicant's request for judicial direction was dismissed, and the court confirmed that the Registrar's decision to refuse to accept the documents for filing was valid and correctly exercised under the rules. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements and the Registrar's role in ensuring compliance with the rules.

Orders