Mert v Lawrence (Vic) Pty Ltd - [2016] VSC 348

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PERSONAL INJURY LIST

S CI 2015 1754

EREN MERT	Plaintiff
v
LAWRENCE (VIC) PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2016
DATE OF RULING:	21 June 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mert v Lawrence (Vic) Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 348

---

EVIDENCE – plaintiff employee allegedly sustained injury in incident at work – defendant employer accepted by statutory agent plaintiff’s claim for impairment benefits under accident compensation legislation – whether constitutes an admission by defendant for all purposes that incident happened and injury sustained – whether admission can be used against defendant in separate proceeding being tried by jury for damages at common law in respect of same alleged incident and injury – evidentiary status of such admission – whether of significant or low probative value – relevance of contextual considerations in so determining – whether evidence of admission should be excluded because unfairly prejudicial to defendant, misleading or confusing or cause delay or result in an undue waste of time – Accident Compensation Act 1985 ( Vic) s 98C, Evidence Act 2005 (Vic) s 135 (a), (b) and (c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	John Richards QC and John Valiotis	Zaparas Lawyers
For the defendant	Roisin Annesley QC and Michael Clarke	Wisewould Mahony

HIS HONOUR:

This is a trial before a jury of six of the plaintiff’s civil proceeding for damages based upon negligence and breach of statutory duty in respect of a back injury allegedly suffered in the course of employment with the defendant. The plaintiff was the only eye witness called in relation to the alleged incident. The defendant contends that the plaintiff was not injured at work, that any injury was not due to its negligence or breach of duty and that any injury sustained was much less serious than alleged.

Just prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, she sought the following admission from the defendant:

The defendant admits that on 19 September 2012 it accepted liability under the Accident Compensation Act for the plaintiff’s lower back injury and psychological condition …

When the defendant refused to make the admission, the issue was brought to me for a ruling. I determined the issue upon the basis that the plaintiff would, if permitted, lead evidence of the facts specified in the proposed admission. These are my reasons for ruling against the admission of the evidence.

The fact that the defendant admitted on 19 September 2012 that it accepted liability under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) for the plaintiff’s lower back injury and psychological condition is derived from a letter of that date sent by CGU Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd to the plaintiff in relation to her claim for impairment benefits against the defendant (see s 98C). The letter advised that liability was accepted for the lower back and psychological injuries which the plaintiff claimed had arisen in…

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 Mert v Lawrence (Vic) 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: [2016] VSC 348
Decision Date: 21 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mert v Lawrence (Vic) Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained in an incident at work. The employer had acknowledged the claim for compensation benefits under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) through its statutory agent. The central legal issue was whether this acknowledgment constituted an admission by the employer that the incident and resulting injury occurred, and if such an admission could be used in a separate proceeding for common law damages tried by a jury. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the evidentiary status of this admission, its probative value, and whether it should be excluded due to potential prejudice, confusion, or undue delay.

The court examined the statutory context and the procedural differences between the workers' compensation and common law proceedings. It considered the legislative intent behind the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) and the implications of an employer's acceptance of a claim on the admissibility of such an acknowledgment in subsequent litigation. The court balanced the probative value of the admission against its potential prejudicial effects, as outlined in the Evidence Act 2005 (Vic). It concluded that the admission, while relevant, did not necessarily have significant probative value in the common law damages proceeding and could potentially cause unfair prejudice or confusion to the defendant.

Ultimately, the court found that the employer's admission should not be admissible in the common law damages proceeding due to its potential to unfairly prejudice the defendant. The court held that the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighed its probative value, leading to the exclusion of the admission under s 135(b) of the Evidence Act 2005 (Vic). The court also noted that allowing the admission could lead to confusion and an undue waste of time.

The court's final orders included a ruling that the employer's admission was inadmissible in the common law damages proceeding, thereby protecting the defendant from potential prejudice and ensuring a fair trial.

Orders