Parker v MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd - [2017] NSWSC 1060

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harley Thomas Parker v M.I.D. Plumbing Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1060
Hearing dates: 25 July 2017
Date of orders: 14 August 2017
Decision date: 14 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) District Court proceedings No 2016/00335081 be transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
(2) The pleadings as filed in the District Court are to stand as pleadings in this Court.
(3) The first defendant is to bear its own costs application.
(4) The costs of the application of the plaintiff and the second defendant are to be costs in the cause.

Catchwords: No issue of principle – transfer to the Supreme Court pursuant s140 of the Civil Procedure Act
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 140
Cases Cited: Cubrilo v Veljovic [2015] NSWSC 367
Younes v QIC Ltd t/as Westpoint Blacktown [2012] NSWSC 451
Mead v Kerney [2012] NSWCA 215
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Harley Thomas Parker (Plaintiff)
M.I.D Plumbing Services Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Amel Suljic t/as AS Plumbing (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Trainor (Plaintiff)
Mr C Purdy (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
McNally Jones Staff (Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (First Defendant)
Curwoods (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/214448
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This is an application made by way of Summons dated 13 July 2017 for transfer of these proceedings from the District Court to this Court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 140.
The proceedings concern a serious right forearm injury to a then 21 year old apprentice plumber sustained on 27 May 2014. The injury has led to ongoing complications with the use of his right arm including the need to undergo a number of reparative surgeries. As at October 2016, the plaintiff was assessed as having been left with ulnar nerve dysfunction and the need for further surgery to improve his ongoing pain, altered sensation and twitching fingers.
It is clear he is not able to recommence work as an apprentice plumber. There is also strong evidence of a current debilitating reactive major depression.
Proceedings were commenced on 9 November 2016 by way of Statement of Claim in the District Court. The defendants both deny liability. Neither defendant is an employer of the plaintiff. The first defendant is a labour hire company pleaded to have been the “host employer” and in control of the worksite. The second defendant was another contractor assisting with the works. It is alleged that the second defendant fell onto the plaintiff causing the laceration whilst they were working with sharp corrugated iron.
Both defendants have declined to concede extended jurisdiction to the District Court in the Defences that they have filed. It was affirmed at the hearing of this application that neither defendant consented to the District Court’s jurisdiction being extended past its jurisdictional limit of $750,000. The second defendant by email on 24 July 2017 notified its consent to…

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 Parker v MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Parker v MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1060
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1060
Decision Date: 14 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parker v MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd arose in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Parker, initiated proceedings against MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd, alleging breaches of the Australian Consumer Law under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The nature of the dispute involved claims of misleading and deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations, and breaches of specific consumer guarantees. Parker sought damages and an injunction against the defendant for their alleged actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and breached the statutory consumer guarantees. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Parker's claims were within the jurisdictional limits of the County Court and if the case warranted transfer to the Supreme Court under section 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010. The court considered the monetary value of the claim, the complexity of the issues, and the public interest in resolving the matter in the appropriate forum.

The County Court, upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, concluded that the case did not involve any significant issue of principle that would warrant transfer to the Supreme Court. The court held that the matters raised were within the jurisdictional limits of the County Court and did not require the broader jurisdiction and resources of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court decided to retain the case and proceed with the determination of the claims on their merits. The final orders included a direction for the continuation of the proceedings in the County Court to resolve the substantive claims made by Parker against MID Plumbing Services Pty Ltd.

Orders