Reported Decision:
62 NSWLR 42
Court of Appeal
CITATION: QBE WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED v. DOLAN [2004] NSWCA 458 HEARING DATE(S): 25/08/2004 JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2004JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Tobias JA at 81 DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Set aside the orders and judgment of Gibb DCJ dated 26 September 2003.; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant.; 4. Direct parties to file short minutes of order in relation to the quantum of damages and indemnity.; 5. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs in this Court and in the court below.; 6. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if so entitled. CATCHWORDS: ESTOPPEL - Consent judgment between employee and third party tortfeasor - Subsequent proceedings for indemnity brought by employer against third party tortfeasor - Whether employer a privy in interest to claim brought by employee against third party tortfeasor - Whether res judicata estoppel - Whether independent right. - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s.151Z(1)(d) - Construction - Employer's indemnity for compensation paid to employee - Consent judgment - Whether third party tortfeasor was a person in whom a liability was created within the meaning of the section - Whether right to indemnity is an independent right. LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1946
Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)CASES CITED: Australian Securities Commission v. Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485
Baxter v. Obacelo Pty. Ltd. (2001) 205 CLR 635
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Effem Foods Pty. Ltd v. Trawl Industries of Australia Pty. Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 510
GIO of New South Wales v. McDonald (1991) 25 NSWLR 492
Gleeson v J Wippell & Co Ltd [1977] 3 All ER 54
James Hardie & Co. Pty. Limited v. Seltsam Pty. Limited (1998) 196 CLR 53
Manners v. Transfield Pty. Limited (1992) 110 ALR 70
Ramsay v. Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271
Tickle Industries Pty. Limited v. Hann (1974) 130 CLR 321
Tooth v Tillyer (1956) 95 CLR 605PARTIES :
QBE WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED (Appellant)
FRANCIS DOLAN (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40881/03 COUNSEL: G.M. Watson SC/N.E. Chen (Appellant)
S. Gageler SC/R.C. Tonner (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Gillis Delaney Brown (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 67/02 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Gibb DCJ
CA 40881/03
DC 67/0215 December 2004MASON P
BEAZLEY JA
TOBIAS JA
QBE WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED v. DOLAN
Headnote
The appellant was the insurer of an employer whose employee was injured when a motor vehicle driven by the respondent collided with his vehicle. The employee commenced proceedings in the Compensation Court claiming workers compensation from the employer under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) . The employee also brought proceedings in the District Court against the respondent claiming damages for the injuries he sustained which were settled by entry of judgment…
Continue reading QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Dolan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Dolan [2004] NSWCA 458
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 458
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant was estopped by the prior consent judgment from pursuing its claim for indemnity, and whether the appellant possessed an independent right to indemnity under section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). Specifically, the Court considered whether the third party tortfeasor was a person in whom a liability was created within the meaning of that section, and whether the right to indemnity was an independent statutory right that could be pursued separately from the employee's claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not estopped by the consent judgment. It reasoned that the appellant was not a privy in interest to the original claim brought by the employee against the third party tortfeasor, and therefore the doctrine of *res judicata* did not apply. Furthermore, the Court determined that section 151Z(1)(d) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* conferred an independent right of indemnity upon the employer, which was not extinguished by the employee's settlement with the tortfeasor. The Court found that the consent judgment did not preclude the appellant from establishing the tortfeasor's liability for the purposes of its indemnity claim.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Court, and entered a verdict and judgment for the appellant. The Court directed the parties to file short minutes of order regarding the quantum of damages and indemnity, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs in both the Court of Appeal and the court below, with a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951* (NSW) to be granted if the respondent was so entitled.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Set aside the orders and judgment of Gibb DCJ dated 26 September 2003.; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant.; 4. Direct parties to file short minutes of order in relation to the quantum of damages and indemnity.; 5. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs in this Court and in the court below.; 6. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if so entitled.
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.