Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2023] ACTSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 214
Hearing Date:	4 August 2023
Decision Date:	4 August 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [24].
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JOINDER OF PARTIES – Application to join second defendant to proceedings – personal injury – claim against supermarket arising from operation of sliding doors – defence asserting contract with maintenance company – whether maintenance company should be joined as a defendant – defects in defendant’s pleadings – where plaintiff’s
solicitors significantly delayed addressing issue of joinder of
second defendant – basis for joining second defendant as entity contracted to maintain the doors – desire to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and potentially inconsistent outcomes – where defendant neither consents to nor opposes application – joinder of additional defendant allowed – hearing vacated
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 220, 501, 502, 504, 507, 1753
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
[2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 Bevillesta Pty Ltd v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16 Fabre v Lui [2015] NSWCA 157 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; 240 CLR 1
Parties:	Shiel Mehta (Plaintiff)
Woolworths Group Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel
B Jullienne (Plaintiff) D Shillington (Defendant)
Solicitors
United Legal (Plaintiff) Meridian Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 220 of 2022
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
1․	By way of an application in proceeding, the plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended
Originating Claim and Amended Statement of Claim for the purpose of joining a second
defendant to the proceedings. The Originating Claim seeks damages for what is said to
be negligence on the part of Woolworths as the occupier of the premises. The Amended
Originating Claim seeks to add Assa Abloy Entrance Systems Australia Pty Ltd as the
second defendant. From correspondence between the plaintiff’s solicitors and
Woolworths’ solicitors, it appears that Woolworths’ position is that it delegated a relevant
part of its duty to the Assa Abloy entity.
2․	Since 2 February 2023, the matter has been listed for hearing on 28 August 2023 with
an estimate of three days.
3․	The power to grant leave to amend an originating process and Statement of Claim arises
from rr 501, 502, 504 and 507 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The power to
join additional parties is in r 220.
Facts
4․	The proceedings were commenced by an Originating Claim filed on 4 July 2022. The
claim is one alleging negligence on the part of Woolworths. The plaintiff alleges that on
4 March 2021, when attempting to exit a Woolworths store, the automatic sliding doors
closed on the plaintiff, striking his head and trapping both of his arms below his
shoulders. Later that day, as a result of dizziness and his injuries, the plaintiff fell to the
ground and suffered further injuries.
5․	Woolworths filed a Defence on 19 October 2022. In response…

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 Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd [2023] ACTSC 214
Case: [2023] ACTSC 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mehta v Woolworths Group Ltd, the plaintiff, Shiel Mehta, filed an application seeking leave to amend his Originating Claim and Statement of Claim to include a second defendant, Assa Abloy Entrance Systems Australia Pty Ltd. The plaintiff's initial claim was for damages due to alleged negligence by Woolworths, stemming from an incident where automatic sliding doors at a Woolworths store closed on him, causing injury. Woolworths, in its defence, asserted that it had contracted Assa Abloy for the maintenance of the sliding doors. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's application to join Assa Abloy as a second defendant should be allowed and, if so, whether the hearing should be vacated to accommodate this change.

The court found that Woolworths' initial pleadings were defective, failing to identify a specific legal entity responsible for the maintenance of the sliding doors and lacking details about the contract with Assa Abloy. The plaintiff's solicitors were also found to have delayed in addressing the potential implications of Woolworths' delegation of responsibility, despite having the necessary information to do so. The court acknowledged that joining Assa Abloy as a second defendant was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent outcomes. Despite the delay and the need to vacate the hearing, the court allowed the joinder of Assa Abloy due to Woolworths' neutral stance on the application.

The court ordered that Assa Abloy be joined as the second defendant, granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended Originating Claim and Statement of Claim, vacated the scheduled hearing, and directed the plaintiff to pay Woolworths' costs associated with the application and the vacated hearing date. Additionally, the plaintiff's solicitors undertook to cover certain costs, ensuring the plaintiff would not be charged for the application or any costs resulting from the hearing's vacation.

Orders