Runcan v Svedala Australia Ltd - [2005] WADC 46

RUNCAN -v- SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD [2005] WADC 46

Last Update: 30/03/2005

RUNCAN -v- SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD [2005] WADC 46
Link to Appeal:	[2007] WASCA 126
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WADC 46
Case No:	CIV:3317/2001	Heard:	31 JANUARY & 10 FEBRUARY 2005
Coram:	MCCANN DCJ	Delivered:	15/03/2005
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for extension of time to appeal granted Appeal adjourned with liberty to defendant to file further minute of proposed amended defence
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT File Number: CIV 3317 of 2001 Result: Application dismissed
Parties:	VIOREL RUNCAN SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 197 428) EXTRAMAN WA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for extension of time to appeal from Deputy Registrar Amendment of defence to include a plea pursuant to Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) s 175 Required elements of plea
Legislation:	Occupiers Liability Act (WA) 1985, s 2 Rules of the District Court (WA) O 6 r 11(2) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) s 5(1), s 93B, s 93C, s 93E, s 175
Case References:	Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 22 Marsden v Unimin Australia Ltd; Price v Resolute Resources Ltd [2004] WASCA 143 Re Monger; ex parte Cross [2004] WASCA 176 Royal v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2004] WASCA 269 State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Frauenfelder v Reid (1963) 109 CLR 42 Girando v Girando (1997) 18 WAR 450 Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd [2003] WASCA 225 Van Stillevoldt BV v El Carriers Inc [1983] 1 All ER 699

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RUNCAN -v- SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD [2005] WADC 46 CORAM : MCCANN DCJ HEARD : 31 JANUARY & 10 FEBRUARY 2005 DELIVERED : 15 MARCH 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 3317 of 2001 BETWEEN : VIOREL RUNCAN

Plaintiff

AND

SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 197 428)

Defendant

EXTRAMAN WA PTY LTD

Third Party

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

File No : CIV 3317 of 2001

Result : Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for extension of time to appeal from Deputy Registrar - Amendment of defence to include a plea pursuant to Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) s 175 - Required elements of plea

Legislation:

Occupiers Liability Act (WA) 1985, s 2
Rules of the District Court (WA) O 6 r 11(2)
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) s 5(1), s 93B, s 93C, s 93E, s 175

Result:

Application for…

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 Runcan v Svedala Australia 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: [2005] WADC 46
Decision Date: 15 MARCH 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Runcan v Svedala Australia Ltd was heard before the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against a decision from the Deputy Registrar, which had dismissed the applicant’s appeal against an order that they amend their defence to include a plea under section 175 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA). The respondent opposed the application on the grounds that there had been no sufficient explanation for the delay and that there had been no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The Court also considered the required elements of a plea under section 175 of the Act and whether the applicant had included all necessary elements in their proposed amended defence.

The Court found that the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The Court held that the applicant had made a genuine attempt to comply with the order to amend their defence, but had been impeded by circumstances beyond their control. The Court further found that the proposed amended defence included all necessary elements of a plea under section 175 of the Act, and that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the legislation.

The Court granted the application for an extension of time to appeal and adjourned the appeal with liberty to the defendant to file a further minute of the proposed amended defence. The Court noted that the respondent would be at liberty to file an application to strike out the amended defence if they considered it to be insufficient.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time to appeal granted

Appeal adjourned with liberty to defendant to file further minute of proposed

amended defence

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.