Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd - [2000] QCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Neuss v Roche Bros P/L [2000] QCA 130

PARTIES:
PAUL JOSEPH NEUSS

(plaintiff/respondent)

v

FILE NO/S:

ROCHE BROS PTY LTD ACN 004 142 223
(defendant/applicant)

Appeal No 9447 of 1999
DC No 2133 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: Judgment delivered 14 April 2000
Further Order delivered 13 June 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 4 February 2000

JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Pincus JA and Byrne J
Separate reasons for further order of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

FURTHER ORDER: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE – RIGHT TO PROCEED FOR DAMAGES – where plaintiff required to apply in “approved form” for certificate before instituting common law proceedings – where plaintiff failed to apply for certificate – whether “approved form” existed – effect of failure to approve a form

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14A
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 551, s 558

Workers’ Compensation Act 1990, s 30, s 31, s 130, s 130A, s 132, s 182D, s 206A

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, referred to

Brakespeare v The Northern Assurance Co Ltd (1959) 101 CLR 661, applied

R v Dunphy; ex parte Maynes (1978) 139 CLR 482, referred to

COUNSEL: P A Keane QC, with R C Morton for the applicant
R J Douglas SC, with P G Bickford for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Bain Gasteen for the applicant
Sciacca’s Lawyers & Consultants for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: The framework for the scheme envisaged by s182D of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 had not been fully established by the time the respondent commenced his action on 20 June 1997, in that for the reasons expressed by Pincus JA, the necessary “approved form” of application, to the Board, by a prospective claimant of “damages at law”, did not exist. I agree with His Honour’s further conclusions that the applicant consequently may not rely on the respondent’s “failure” to obtain a certificate under s182D(1), leaving the respondent free to commence his action. I agree that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed, with costs to be assessed.

PINCUS JA: The Court delivered a preliminary judgment in this application on 14 April 2000. As contemplated by the orders then made, affidavits and submissions have been filed relating to the question of the approved form referred to in s 182D(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1990 ("the Act"). It has emerged from the additional material that the applicant's contention is that at the relevant date (20 June 1997, when the suit was commenced) there was an approved form for the purposes of s 182D, the approval having been effected by a memorandum of 7 February 1997. The respondent denies…

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 Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 130
Case: [2000] QCA 130
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a former employee, Mr Neuss, and his former employer, Roche Bros Pty Ltd. Mr Neuss sought damages for personal injury sustained during his employment, claiming that his employer was negligent. He argued that he was entitled to proceed with common law proceedings despite the statutory workers’ compensation framework. The central issue was whether Mr Neuss was required to apply in an “approved form” for a certificate before instituting common law proceedings, and if his failure to do so was valid, considering the absence of an approved form at the relevant time.

The court had to determine the legal requirements and procedures applicable to Mr Neuss's claim for damages. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the statutory requirement for an approved form was mandatory and whether the absence of such a form rendered any application futile. The court also considered the implications of Mr Neuss's failure to apply for a certificate on his right to pursue common law proceedings. This involved interpreting the relevant legislative provisions and understanding the interplay between workers’ compensation laws and common law rights.

The court ruled that the statutory requirement for an approved form was not mandatory and that the absence of such a form did not invalidate any application. It found that Mr Neuss’s failure to apply for a certificate did not prevent him from proceeding with his common law claim. The court interpreted the statutory provisions to mean that while an approved form was preferable, its absence did not preclude an applicant from seeking a certificate. This interpretation was based on the legislative intent to provide a practical and accessible pathway for employees seeking to exercise their common law rights. Consequently, Mr Neuss was permitted to proceed with his claim for damages.

The final orders of the court allowed Mr Neuss to continue with his common law proceedings against Roche Bros Pty Ltd. The court emphasised that the absence of an approved form did not bar his right to seek a certificate and, by extension, his right to pursue damages. This decision clarified the procedural requirements for employees seeking to bypass the statutory workers’ compensation scheme in favour of common law remedies.

Orders