Pero Delov v Caldipp Pty Limited t/as Slaven Motors
[2002] ACTSC 10 (22 February 2002)
PERO DELOV -v- CALDIPP PTY LIMITED T/AS SLAVEN MOTORS
No. SCA 43 of 2001
Judge: RYAN J
SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT
Date: 22 FEBRUARY 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 43 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
On appeal from the Magistrates Court (WC No 148 of 2000) of the Australian Capital Territory
BETWEEN: PERO DELOV
Appellant
AND:CALDIPP PTY LIMITED T/AS SLAVEN MOTORS
Defendant
ORDER
Judge: RYAN J
Date: 22 FEBRUARY 2002
Place: CANBERRA
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
THAT the Order of the Magistrate of 14 May 2001 be set aside.
THAT the application for arbitration under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 be remitted to Magistrate Burns.
THAT the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
THAT a grant of a Costs Certificate under Section 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 be made.
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter, in a passage from the reasons for judgment which I published on 20 February this year, to which Mr Lunney of Counsel for the appellant referred, I said I considered that the evidence in the present case permits a finding that the episodes of increased or exacerbated pain, which the appellant claimed to have experienced in the course of his work, could have amounted to an aggravation of the disease of fibromyalgia within the definition of disease in s 6(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (“the Act”).
That passage indicates that there were factual issues which, I consider, were left open as a result of the view of the law taken by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, despite the cogent submission of Mr Lunney of Counsel for the appellant that an order should be made which would have the effect of bringing this litigation to an end as quickly and as inexpensively as possible, I consider that to be outweighed by the benefit that the Magistrate had of having heard the applicant and the other witnesses. It is also my view that he remains in a better position than the Court to resolve the outstanding questions of fact to which I adverted in the paragraph just quoted.
It will also be remembered that, in the concluding paragraph of the same earlier reasons, I noted the observation of Evatt and Sheppard JJ in Commonwealth v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369, that each case of this kind must depend on its own facts. That observation applies with no less force to the present case, and it is my view that the facts on which this case must turn should be found, for the reasons that I have indicated, by the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, the order of the Court will be that the order of the Magistrate of 14 May 2001 be set aside. Secondly, I order that the application for arbitration be remitted to Magistrate Burns to be determined in accordance with law. The respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement, and, fourthly, I shall grant a Cost Certificate under s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.
Associate:
Date: 22 February 2002.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr G Lunney
Solicitor for the Appellant: Higgins Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Stretton
Solicitor for the Respondent: Hunt & Hunt
Date of Further Hearing: 22 February 2002
Date of Orders: 22 February 2002.
- AGLC
- Pero Delov v Caldipp Pty Limited t/as Slaven Motors [2002] ACTSC 10
- Case
- [2002] ACTSC 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Magistrate had correctly exercised his discretion in ordering a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. This involved an examination of the relevant provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 and the applicable case law. The Court was also required to consider whether the Magistrate had considered all relevant factors in making the decision to grant the stay.
In its judgment, the Court found that the Magistrate had erred in his decision to grant the stay. The Court held that the Magistrate had failed to adequately consider the specific circumstances of the case and the appropriate balance between the rights of the parties. As a result, the Court set aside the Magistrate's order and remitted the application for arbitration back to the original Magistrate for reconsideration. The Court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed upon, and granted a Costs Certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
THAT the Order of the Magistrate of 14 May 2001 be set aside.
2.
THAT the application for arbitration under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 be remitted to Magistrate Burns.
3.
THAT the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
4.
THAT a grant of a Costs Certificate under Section 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 be made.
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.