RUNCAN -v- SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD [2007] WASCA 126

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 126
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:102/2005	Heard:	2 MARCH 2007
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA McLURE JA PULLIN JA BUSS JA	Delivered:	12/06/07
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	VIOREL RUNCAN SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 197 428)
Catchwords:	Workers compensation Persons liable to pay compensation Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law and statutory compensation Application of "deemed employer" provisions under Workers compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)
Legislation:	Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 175(1)
Case References:	Dalgety Australia Ltd v Rubin, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 5485; 24 August 1984 Foster v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (2006) 153 IR 168 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91 Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd [2003] WASCA 225 Klein v Minister for Education (2007) 81 ALJR 582 Koljibabic v WMC Resources Ltd [2003] HCATrans 427 Marsden v Unimin Australia Ltd [2004] WASCA 143 Marsden v Unimin Australia Ltd [2005] HCATrans 569 Minister for Education v Klein [2005] WASCA 185 Re Calder; Ex parte Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 343 Royal v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2004] WASCA 269 Talbot & Olivier (a firm) v Witcombe (2006) 32 WAR 179 Traegar v Pires de Albuquerque (1997) 18 WAR 432 Transfield Pty Ltd v Rawstron [2005] WASCA 78

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : RUNCAN -v- SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD [2007] WASCA 126 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

McLURE JA

PULLIN JA

BUSS JA

HEARD : 2 MARCH 2007 DELIVERED : 12 JUNE 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 102 of 2005 BETWEEN : VIOREL RUNCAN

Appellant

AND

SVEDALA AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 197 428)

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : McCANN DCJ

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

File No : CIV 3317 of 2001

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Workers compensation - Persons liable to pay compensation - Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law and statutory compensation - Application of "deemed employer" provisions under Workers compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Legislation:

Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 175(1)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B L Nugawela

Respondent : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo

Respondent : Deacons

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

Dalgety Australia Ltd v Rubin, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 5485; 24 August 1984
Foster v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (2006) 153 IR 168
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91
Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd [2003] WASCA 225
Klein v Minister for Education (2007)…

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: [2007] WASCA 126
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Runcan v Svedala Australia Ltd involved the claimant, Runcan, pursuing both statutory compensation and common law damages against his employer. Runcan sought to establish liability against Svedala Australia Ltd for damages at common law, as well as for statutory compensation under the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The dispute centred around the application of the "deemed employer" provisions in the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act, which potentially limit the employer's liability for common law damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was tasked with determining the extent of Svedala's liability under both the statutory and common law frameworks.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Svedala could be held liable for common law damages despite being deemed the employer under the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act. Specifically, the court had to decide if the statutory scheme, which provides exclusive remedies for workers' compensation, also precluded alternative rights to common law damages. The court was also required to interpret the "deemed employer" provisions and their implications for the employer's liability in concurrent proceedings for statutory compensation and common law damages.

In its decision, the court found that the statutory scheme provided exclusive remedies to the employee, thereby precluding any common law damages claims against the employer. The "deemed employer" provisions were interpreted to mean that Svedala, as the employer, was responsible for statutory compensation but not for any additional common law damages. The court held that the statutory scheme was intended to provide a comprehensive and exclusive remedy for workers, and any attempt to seek common law damages would be inconsistent with this purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed Runcan's claim for common law damages, affirming Svedala's liability only for statutory compensation. The application for leave to appeal was subsequently refused by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.