NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CITATION:
OCS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v CHO [2010] NSWCA 85
FILE NUMBER(S):
2009/298242
HEARING DATE(S):
29/03/2010
JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2010
PARTIES:
OCS (Australia) Proprietary Limited, trading as Overseas Courier Serivces - Appellant
Helen Cho - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF:
McColl JA Handley AJA Sackville AJA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
3810/2007
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
O'Toole DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
11/02/2009
COUNSEL:
L King SC and J Catsanos - Appellant
R A Cavanagh - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Tresscox Lawyers - Appellant
Holman Webb Lawyers - Respondent
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – competency – amount in issue – quantum appeal – bona fide claim for requisite amount – susceptible of reasonable support – appeal competent.
APPEAL – competency – amount in issue—property or civil right of requisite value – employer’s claim to indemnity under Workers Compensation Act s 151Z—civil right – notional pool of damages of requisite value – appeal competent.
DAMAGES—no question of principle.
LEGISLATION CITED:
Workers Compensation Act 1987, 151Z(1)(d)
District Court Act 1973, s 127(2)
CATEGORY:
Principal judgment
CASES CITED:
A-G v Arthur Ryan Automobiles Ltd [1938] 2 KB 16 CA
A-G ex rel Duncan v Andrews [1979] HCA 24, 145 CLR 573
Cole v The Commonwealth [1961] HCA 87, 106 CLR 653
Dunn v Ross Lamb Motors [1978] 1 NSWLR 26
Grant v Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney [1999] NSWCA 250, 47 NSWLR 263
South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service v Gadiry [2002] NSWCA 161; 54 NSWLR 495
TEXTS CITED:
DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
09/298242
McColl JA
Handley AJA
Sackville AJAFriday 23 July 2010
OCS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v HELEN CHO
CATCHWORDS
APPEAL – competency – amount in issue – quantum appeal – bona fide claim for requisite amount – susceptible of reasonable support – appeal competent.
APPEAL – competency – amount in issue—property or civil right of requisite value – employer’s claim to indemnity under Workers Compensation Act s 151Z—civil right – notional pool of damages of requisite value – appeal competent.
DAMAGES—no question of principle.HEADNOTE
One of the appellant’s employees was injured in a motor vehicle accident on her way to work and was paid compensation. The employer sued the driver of the other vehicle to enforce its right of indemnity under s 151Z(1)(d) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The trial Judge found that the motor vehicle accident had caused only minor injuries from which the worker had soon recovered and that her continuing incapacity was the result of degenerative disease in her lumbar spine, back injuries in the employment of a previous employer, and surgical procedures. She therefore assessed the notional pool of damages at $3392. The employer appealed as of right claiming that a proper assessment of the notional pool for the purposes of s 151Z(1)(d) was in the order of $720,000. The respondent objected to the competency of the appeal on the ground that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read OCS Australia Pty Ltd v Cho 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] NSWCA 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal was competent, specifically concerning the "amount in issue" requirement for appeals to the Court of Appeal. OCS Australia argued that the appeal involved a civil right of the requisite value, while Mr. Cho contended that the appeal was not competent as the amount in issue did not meet the threshold.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the employer's claim for indemnity under section 151Z of the *Workers Compensation Act* constituted a "property or civil right" for the purposes of the appeal competency provisions. It held that the "amount in issue" was not limited to the specific sum awarded by the primary judge but rather the notional pool of damages that would have been available to the injured worker. The Court found that this notional pool was of the requisite value, rendering the appeal competent.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.