Milanovic v Ventura Transit Pty Ltd (Ruling No4)

[2022] VCC 1016

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

GENERAL LIST

Case No. CI-20-04604

Zlatko Milanovic	Plaintiff
v
Ventura Transit Pty Ltd	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GINNANE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 June 2022
DATE OF RULING:	28 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Milanovic v Ventura Transit Pty Ltd (Ruling No4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 1016

RULING No.4

Subject:ADMISSIONS

Catchwords:   

Legislation Cited:                Evidence Act 2008

Cases Cited:

Judgment:  Evidence admissible

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Fitzpatrick with Mr R Paoletti	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr R Middleton QC with Ms F Spencer	Thomson Geer

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1As a result of a call made by leading counsel for the plaintiff Mr Fitzpatrick, the defendant   produced occupation health and safety meeting minutes from among which Mr Fitzpatrick sought a tender in hard copy form.

2As  a  result  of  submissions  and  discussion  with Mr  Fitzpatrick  and  with  Ms  Spencer  of  junior counsel  for  the defendant,  I    determined  that  in  light  of  the  broad concession  the  defendant  was  prepared  to  make,  that  the               issue  should  be  addressed  and  will  be  addressed  by  the  defendant  making  admitting  that  on  24  April  2018, five  people  attended  an  occupational  health  and  safety meeting  at  the  Dandenong  depot,  one  of  whom  was  Mr  Sam Pouki,  another  being  Mr  Nigel  Foster  and  another  being Mr  Hayden  Matthews,  and  that  on  Wednesday,  26  July 2018,  another  Dandenong  local  occupational  health  and safety  meeting  occurred  at  which  Mr  Hayden  Matthews  was an  attendee  and  Mr  Sam  Pouki  was  an  apology.

3The purpose of the tender sought by Mr Fitzpatrick was expressed for two purposes.    The  second of them  was really  uninstructive  to  the  extent  that  the  content  of the  later minutes  could  not in  any  way  inform  common  law  duty of care the defendant owed the plaintiff  as  at  13  April  or  prior  to  it,  or  have  any work  to  do  in  relation  to  an  alleged  breach  of regulations,  but  that  the  second identified purpose  of  the meeting  would  amount to material that Mr Fitzpatrick  could  fairly  put  to  the  jury  in relation  to  Mr  Pouki's  evidence  given in  cross-examination  of   his  belief  of  the  time  period  at  which  he  ceased  to be  involved  as  an  OH&S  representative.    That is the  basis of my ruling and that is my ruling.

---