Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd

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.