Richards v High Energy Service Pty Ltd - [2023] WADC 52

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RICHARDS -v- HIGH ENERGY SERVICE PTY LTD [2023] WADC 52
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   3 & 11 MAY 2023
DELIVERED          :   24 MAY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 31 of 2018
BETWEEN:   AND

DAVID ALUN RICHARDS
Plaintiff
AND
HIGH ENERGY SERVICE PTY LTD
First Defendant
VICINITY MANAGER PTY LTD
Second Defendant
PERRON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Third Defendant
VICINITY CUSTODIAN PTY LTD t/as GALLERIA SHOPPING CENTRE
Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Issue estoppel - Action for damages for personal injury arising from a workplace accident - Whether an issue estoppel arises where the plaintiff in the current litigation was a defendant in an action commenced by another person injured in the same workplace accident - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16, O 20 r 19

Result:

Application for summary judgment or strike out dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J R Criddle
First Defendant	:	Mr G P Bourhill SC
Second Defendant	:	Ms B A Mangan SC
Third Defendant	:	Ms B A Mangan SC
Fourth Defendant	:	Ms B A Mangan SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Stephen Browne Lawyers
First Defendant	:	Moray & Agnew Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Third Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Fourth Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Albrecht v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] WASC 167
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Catlin v National Australia Bank Ltd [2003] WASC 245
Cockman v Gorman [2022] WASC 125
Diedler v Borowiec [2021] WASC 394
Donaldson v Worrells (Voluntary Liquidator) Suffolk Investments Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 401
DP World Australia Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority [2009] WASCA 16
Forsayth NL v Northern Gold NL (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 940012, 20 January 1994)
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458
Gerovich v Maxwell John Gerovich as Executor of the Estate of Anthony Gerovich [2018] WASC 153
Helmers v Como [2014] WASC 394
Johnson v Hallam [2015] WASC 149
Kelly v Hilton [2021] WASC 369
Knights Capital Group v Bajada and Associates Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 69
Lashansky v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [No 3] [2013] WASCA 260
Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271
Shire of Toodyay v Merrick [2016] WASC 29
Smargiassi Nominees Pty Ltd v Shire of Collie [2021] WASCA 107
SMEC Australia Pty Ltd v Valentine Falls Estate Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 138
Smith v High Energy Service Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 101
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Sutton Investments Pty Ltd v Realistic Investments Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 14
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
Zaghloul v Bayly [2021] WASCA 125

GETHING DCJ:

Introduction

On 3 February 2015 an explosion occurred in an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Richards v High Energy Service Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] WADC 52
Decision Date: 24 MAY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Richards v High Energy Service Pty Ltd was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Richards, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The defendant, High Energy Service Pty Ltd, argued that an issue estoppel should apply, stemming from a previous action brought by another individual injured in the same incident. The plaintiff's case was brought under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), seeking compensation for injuries suffered while employed by the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the doctrine of issue estoppel could be invoked to prevent Richards from pursuing his claim for damages. The court had to consider if the issues decided in the earlier action, where the other injured party was a defendant, were identical or substantially similar to those in the current case, and if so, whether those issues had been finally determined in that proceeding. This required an examination of the specific facts and legal issues addressed in both cases to determine if the application of issue estoppel was appropriate.

The court determined that issue estoppel did not apply in this case. The reasoning provided by the court emphasised that the earlier action involved different parties and different issues, despite the commonality of the workplace accident. The court found that the matters decided in the previous litigation were not identical or substantially similar to those in the current case. Consequently, the court ruled that Richards was not estopped from pursuing his claim for damages. The court's decision was based on the unique facts and legal context of the present litigation, which did not align with the issues and parties involved in the earlier proceeding.

The court ordered that the defendant's application for summary judgment be dismissed. Richards was therefore permitted to proceed with his claim for damages under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The court's ruling clarified the scope of issue estoppel in the context of personal injury claims arising from workplace accidents and reinforced the importance of considering the specific facts and legal issues of each case.

Orders