Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73 Hearing dates: 9 March 2015 Decision date: 27 March 2015 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Simpson J at [94]Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: APPEAL - challenge to findings of fact - findings based on testimonial evidence and demeanour of witnesses - whether trial judge grappled with conflicting documentary evidence - whether material errors in description of evidence - whether necessary to determine why employee had given different histories
CHOICE OF LAW - statutory contribution between tortfeasors - workplace accident in Perth - proceedings between employee and third party compromised in District Court of New South Wales - third party seeks statutory contribution from employer - absence of federal jurisdiction - characterisation of apportionment legislation - applicable choice of law rule for statutory claim for contribution
TORTS - statutory contribution - workplace accident - challenge to equal apportionment of liability between third party and employer - relevance of employer being a company whose sole director and shareholder was the employee - relevance of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z - relevance of compromised proceedings resulting in a judgment for the employee with the parties bearing their own costsLegislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 (Cth), s 8
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 79, 80
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA), s 7
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 10
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9AA, 151Z
Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 20Cases Cited: Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield [2005] HCA 38; 223 CLR 251
Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; 217 CLR 424
Baldry v Jackson [1977] 1 NSWLR 494
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Bunnings Group Ltd v Borg [2014] NSWCA 240
Chilton v Corporation of London (1878) 7 Ch D 735
Clodumar v Nauru Lands Committee [2012] HCA 22; 245 CLR 561
Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd v Couper [2013] NSWCA 444
Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357
CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Formosa [2009] NSWCA 363; 261 ALR 441
Eberstaller v Poulos [2014] NSWCA 211; 313 ALR 165
FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16
Fluor Australia Pty Ltd v ASC Engineering Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 262; 19 VR 458
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186
Hickson v Goodman Fielder Ltd [2009] HCA 11; 237 CLR 130
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; 203 CLR 503
Keith v Gal [2013] NSWCA 339
Lee v Lee’s Air…
Continue reading Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 73
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Redbro Investments Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against findings of fact made by the trial judge in proceedings brought by Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd seeking statutory contribution. The dispute arose from a workplace accident in Perth involving an employee, who was also the sole director and shareholder of Redbro Investments. Ceva Logistics had previously compromised proceedings with the employee in the District Court of New South Wales, which resulted in a judgment for the employee with each party bearing their own costs. Ceva Logistics then sought statutory contribution from Redbro Investments, the employer, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the trial judge made material errors in describing the evidence or failed to grapple with conflicting documentary evidence when making findings of fact, particularly in relation to the testimonial evidence and demeanour of witnesses. Secondly, the court needed to determine the applicable choice of law rule for Ceva Logistics' statutory claim for contribution, given that the workplace accident occurred in Western Australia, but the proceedings for contribution were brought in New South Wales. This involved characterising the apportionment legislation and considering the absence of federal jurisdiction. Finally, the court had to assess the relevance of the employer being a company whose sole director and shareholder was the injured employee, and the implications of the compromised proceedings in the District Court, including the application of section 151Z of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact, concluding that the judge had adequately considered the evidence, including the conflicting documentary evidence, and had properly assessed the witnesses' demeanour. Regarding the choice of law, the court held that the substantive law governing the claim for contribution was that of New South Wales, as the proceedings for contribution were initiated in that jurisdiction and the relevant apportionment legislation was characterised as procedural or remedial in nature. The court also determined that the unique relationship between the employer and the employee, and the terms of the compromised proceedings, did not preclude or alter the employer's liability for contribution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the trial judge made material errors in describing the evidence or failed to grapple with conflicting documentary evidence when making findings of fact, particularly in relation to the testimonial evidence and demeanour of witnesses. Secondly, the court needed to determine the applicable choice of law rule for Ceva Logistics' statutory claim for contribution, given that the workplace accident occurred in Western Australia, but the proceedings for contribution were brought in New South Wales. This involved characterising the apportionment legislation and considering the absence of federal jurisdiction. Finally, the court had to assess the relevance of the employer being a company whose sole director and shareholder was the injured employee, and the implications of the compromised proceedings in the District Court, including the application of section 151Z of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact, concluding that the judge had adequately considered the evidence, including the conflicting documentary evidence, and had properly assessed the witnesses' demeanour. Regarding the choice of law, the court held that the substantive law governing the claim for contribution was that of New South Wales, as the proceedings for contribution were initiated in that jurisdiction and the relevant apportionment legislation was characterised as procedural or remedial in nature. The court also determined that the unique relationship between the employer and the employee, and the terms of the compromised proceedings, did not preclude or alter the employer's liability for contribution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
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.