Legal Research
Cases
Pearson v Connor

Pearson v Connor

Case [2024] WASCA 49 3 May 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   PEARSON -v- CONNOR [2024] WASCA 49
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
HALL JA
SEAWARD J

HEARD: 22 NOVEMBER 2023 AND 8 MARCH 2024
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS FILED 5 DECEMBER 2023 AND 25 MARCH 2024

DELIVERED          :   3 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACV 69 of 2022
BETWEEN:   RICHARD PEARSON
Appellant
AND
WAYNE CONNOR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   COMMISSIONER COLLINS
Citation: PEARSON -v- CONNOR [2022] WADC 65
File Number            :   CIV 310 of 2021

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application by defendant for summary judgment - Interpretation of s 44 of Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) - Whether appellant's claim against respondent is precluded because the respondent as a licensed corporation would, but for s 44, be liable (whether vicariously or otherwise) for damages - Whether respondent established good defence on the merits - Whether it is clear that no real question to be tried - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16 r 1, O 20 r 19
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 44, s 45

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	M J Lourey (on 22 November 2023) T S Jardine (on 8 March 2024)
Respondent	:	F A Stanton

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Chapmans Barristers and Solicitors (on 22 November 2023) Premier Compensation Lawyers (on 8 March 2024)
Respondent	:	Minter Ellison

Cases referred to in decision:

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21; (2023) 97 ALJR 551
Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Gregory Spencer Ward trading as Ward's Stock Transport v Watson [2021] WASCA 44
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Mannall v Howard (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 113
McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306
Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
Pearson v Connor [2022] WADC 65
Pisano v South Metropolitan Health Service [2023] WASCA 80
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 18; (2000) 200 CLR 121
Sutherland v Federal Airports Corporation [1998] SASC 6903; (1998) 72 SASR 356
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47; (2003) 665 NSWLR 1

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant, Richard Pearson, and the respondent, Wayne Connor, were each employed by Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd (Prosegur) as armoured vehicle operators. On 30 January 2018, the appellant and the respondent were working together when the appellant was injured in a single motor vehicle accident.
The appellant commenced an action in the District Court of Western Australia by…

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 Pearson v Connor

Details

AGLC: Pearson v Connor [2024] WASCA 49
Case: [2024] WASCA 49
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pearson v Connor was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, Pearson, brought an action against Connor, the respondent, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The respondent, a licensed corporation, applied for summary judgment under section 44 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), arguing that Pearson's claim against him was precluded because, but for section 44, the respondent would be liable for damages. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent had established a good defence on the merits and whether it was clear that no real question to be tried, given the respondent's status as a licensed corporation.

The court considered the interpretation of section 44 of the Act, focusing on whether the respondent's status as a licensed corporation precluded Pearson's claim against him. The court examined the legislative intent behind section 44, which aims to provide a comprehensive scheme for compensation and rehabilitation for workplace injuries. The court also assessed whether the respondent had demonstrated that there was no real prospect of success for Pearson's claim and that it was clear that no real question to be tried. The court had to determine whether the respondent's defence was based on the respondent's status as a licensed corporation, which would, but for section 44, render the respondent liable for damages.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the respondent had successfully established a good defence on the merits. The court determined that the respondent's status as a licensed corporation under the Act precluded Pearson's claim against him. The court concluded that it was clear that no real question to be tried, as the respondent's defence was based on the statutory scheme, which provided a comprehensive framework for workplace injuries. Consequently, the respondent's application for summary judgment was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that Pearson's claim against Connor be dismissed, and that the respondent's application for summary judgment be granted. The court directed that Pearson's claim be stayed in accordance with section 44 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), recognising the statutory scheme's comprehensive nature. The court also ordered that costs be awarded to the respondent.

Orders