Reported Decision: 76 NSWLR 572
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: RICHARDS v CORNFORD [2010] NSWCA 99 HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:
10 May 2010JUDGMENT OF: Allsop ACJ at 1; McColl JA at 2; Basten JA at 3 DECISION: (1) Allow the appeal and set aside order 4, being a judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $772,818.
(2) In place of order 4, give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $959,670 to date from 7 May 2009.
(3) Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.CATCHWORDS: COURTS - civil - District Court of New South Wales - jurisdiction - amount claimed in excess of jurisdictional limit - whether amount must be specified - whether in statement of claim or particulars - whether jurisdiction extended by lack of objection - PROCEDURE - pleading amount claimed - not permitted where claim for unliquidated damages - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – ambiguous provisions – consent jurisdiction under District Court Act 1973 (NSW) s 51 – whether notice of a claim in excess of the jurisdictional limit must be given in the statement of claim - WORDS & PHRASES - "amount claimed" - "jurisdictional limit" LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), 23
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 4, 44, 49, 50, 51, 76
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.13, Pt 14CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Bebe v Woolworths Ltd (unrep, 11 July 2008)
Mannai Investments Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
Nichols v Patrick Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 457
Woodward Pty Ltd v Kelleher [1989] NSWCA 82PARTIES: Danielle Richards (Appellant)
Ian Cornford (First Respondent)
Taringha House Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (Third Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2009/298373 COUNSEL: Ms S Norton SC/Mr M Daley (Appellant)
Mr J E Rowe (First and Second Respondents)
Mr S G Campbell SC/Mr J G Stewart (Third Respondent)SOLICITORS: Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
John Carmody & Co (First and Second Respondents)
A R Conolly & Company (Third Respondent)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 4344/2005 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Murrell DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 May 2009 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Richards v Cornford [2009] NSWDC 60
CA 2009/298373
DC 4344/200510 May 2010ALLSOP ACJ
McCOLL JA
BASTEN JA
Danielle RICHARDS v Ian CORNFORD
Headnote
Danielle Richards applied for a position as a truck driver with Taringha House Pty Ltd. By way of undertaking a “work trial” on 2 August 2004, she accompanied Mr Cornford when he drove a truck on delivery rounds. Ms Richards offered to assist by operating the tailgate loader. When she was unloading a pallet, she was startled by a direction given by Mr Cornford and fell a distance of over 1 metre from the end of the tailgate loader to the ground thus injuring her right knee.
At trial, damages were assessed at $959,670, exceeding the District Court’s…
Continue reading Richards v Cornford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Richards v Cornford [2010] NSWCA 99
- Case
- [2010] NSWCA 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the District Court of New South Wales in a matter where the amount claimed by the plaintiff, Richards, exceeded the court's statutory jurisdictional limit. The defendant, Cornford, argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the statement of claim did not specify an amount claimed, which was necessary for the court to exercise its consent jurisdiction under section 51 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW). The primary issue was whether the plaintiff was required to specify an amount claimed in the statement of claim, or its particulars, when the claim was for unliquidated damages, and if so, whether the court's jurisdiction could be extended by the defendant's lack of objection.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine the proper interpretation of section 51 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW), particularly the phrase "amount claimed," in the context of claims for unliquidated damages. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Act mandated the specification of an amount claimed in the statement of claim or particulars, and whether the absence of such specification, or a claim exceeding the jurisdictional limit without proper notice, rendered the court's judgment void or merely irregular. The court also considered whether the defendant's failure to object to the jurisdiction at an earlier stage constituted a waiver or an extension of the court's jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court's jurisdiction under section 51 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) was not automatically invoked by the filing of a statement of claim, but rather required the plaintiff to give notice of a claim within the jurisdictional limit. In cases of unliquidated damages, where an exact amount cannot be pleaded, the plaintiff must still provide sufficient particulars to indicate that the claim falls within the court's monetary jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequate notice of a claim within the jurisdictional limit, and therefore the District Court had lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment for the amount awarded. The appeal was allowed, the judgment for the plaintiff was set aside, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff in a revised amount, with costs ordered in favour of the appellant.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine the proper interpretation of section 51 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW), particularly the phrase "amount claimed," in the context of claims for unliquidated damages. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Act mandated the specification of an amount claimed in the statement of claim or particulars, and whether the absence of such specification, or a claim exceeding the jurisdictional limit without proper notice, rendered the court's judgment void or merely irregular. The court also considered whether the defendant's failure to object to the jurisdiction at an earlier stage constituted a waiver or an extension of the court's jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court's jurisdiction under section 51 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) was not automatically invoked by the filing of a statement of claim, but rather required the plaintiff to give notice of a claim within the jurisdictional limit. In cases of unliquidated damages, where an exact amount cannot be pleaded, the plaintiff must still provide sufficient particulars to indicate that the claim falls within the court's monetary jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequate notice of a claim within the jurisdictional limit, and therefore the District Court had lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment for the amount awarded. The appeal was allowed, the judgment for the plaintiff was set aside, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff in a revised amount, with costs ordered in favour of the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside order 4, being a judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $772,818.
(2) In place of order 4, give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $959,670 to date from 7 May 2009.
(3) Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
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.