Rosata v Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor

ROSATA
v
CITYWIDE SERVICE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD & ANOR
[2024] HCASL 106
M97/2023

This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Beach, Osborn JJA and Forbes A‑JA) concerns the interpretation of the provisions of Pt VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and the new arguments sought to be raised by the applicant for the first time in this Court have insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
11 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rosata v Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor, the applicant, Mr Rosata, sought special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court of Appeal had upheld a judgment of the Supreme Court that dismissed Mr Rosata’s claim for damages for nervous shock under Pt VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). Mr Rosata’s claim arose from an incident in which he witnessed a co-worker being injured in an accident at work. The High Court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and whether the new arguments advanced by Mr Rosata for the first time in the High Court had any prospect of success.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned the interpretation of Pt VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and whether Mr Rosata’s claim for nervous shock was within the scope of the statutory provisions. Specifically, the Court of Appeal had held that Mr Rosata’s claim was not within the statutory definition of "injury" because it did not involve a physical impact or direct harm to his person. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the statutory requirement for the shock to be "caused by seeing or hearing the effects of an accident" was not satisfied as Mr Rosata had not witnessed the immediate effects of the accident but had only seen the aftermath.

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. The Court observed that Mr Rosata’s claim did not fit within the statutory definition of "injury" as it did not involve a physical impact or direct harm. The Court also noted that the statutory requirement for witnessing the effects of an accident was not met as Mr Rosata had not seen the immediate effects of the accident. Furthermore, the Court held that the new arguments raised by Mr Rosata for the first time in the High Court did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the High Court refused special leave to appeal and ordered Mr Rosata to pay the costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established