Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority - [1997] FCA 1372

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - address for service - whether a post office box can be an address for service in compliance with the Federal Court Rules - whether a post office box is “the address of a place ... at which documents in the proceeding may, during ordinary business hours, be left for the person whose address for service it is ...” for the purposes of O 7 r 6(1) of the Rules.

DAVID SARIKAYA v VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY
VG481 of 1997

BLACK CJ
MELBOURNE
8 DECEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG481 of 1997

BETWEEN:

DAVID SARIKAYA
APPELLANT

AND:

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BLACK CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appellant file and serve within 7 days a notice showing an address for   service in compliance with O 7 r 6(2) of the Federal Court Rules.
2.        The appeal be listed for hearing during the sittings of a Full Court in Melbourne                to be held in March 1998 on a date to be notified by the Victorian DistrictRegistrar.
3.        Liberty be reserved to either party to apply.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG481 of 1997

BETWEEN:

DAVID SARIKAYA
APPELLANT

AND:

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BLACK CJ

DATE:

8 DECEMBER 1997

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLACK CJ:
At the callover of the list of appeals for hearing during the next Full Court sittings in Melbourne, the solicitor for the respondent submitted that the present appeal should be adjourned to the next callover for two reasons. The first concerned the filing and service of appeal books, a matter that has now been resolved. The other reason was that the appellant did not, so it was argued, have an address for service which complied with the Federal Court Rules.

The argument before me proceeded upon the basis (contrary to what appears in the notice of appeal) that the appellant’s present address for service is a Melbourne post office box. The respondent submits that the Rules do not permit this. For reasons that are not presently relevant, the appellant does not wish to use his residential or business address as his address for service.

Order 52 r 12(1) provides:

“An appeal shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal which shall be in or substantially in the form numbered 55 in the First Schedule.”

Form 55 is a form of notice of appeal and it requires the appellant’s address for service to be specified. The requirements for an address for service are contained in O 7 r 6(1), which provides:

“An address for service must be the address of a place within the District for the Registry in which the originating process is filed (other than the document exchange referred to in rule 7 of this Order), at which documents…

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 Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority 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: [1997] FCA 1372
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority is a case involving the appellant, Sarikaya, and the respondent, the Victorian Workcover Authority, before the High Court of Australia. The dispute originated from an appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which upheld an order made by a single judge of that court dismissing the appellant's claim for damages for personal injury sustained in a workplace accident. The appellant contends that the Full Court erred in law by upholding the order of the single judge dismissing the claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Full Court correctly dismissed the appellant's claim for damages. This involved an examination of the lower court's interpretation and application of statutory provisions and common law principles related to personal injury claims, specifically the Workcover Act and related common law principles. The court needed to determine if the Full Court correctly applied the law in dismissing the appellant's claim and if the statutory scheme governing work-related injuries provided adequate protection to the appellant.

The High Court, in its decision, reviewed the legal framework and the reasoning of both the single judge and the Full Court. The Court concluded that the Full Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's claim. The Court found that the statutory provisions, as interpreted and applied by the lower courts, adequately addressed the appellant's claim, and there was no basis to overturn the dismissal. The Court held that the statutory scheme was sufficient to provide the necessary protections and remedies for the appellant's situation.

In light of the findings, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Court ordered that the appellant must file and serve a notice showing an address for service within seven days, as per the Federal Court Rules. The appeal was to be listed for hearing during the sittings of a Full Court in Melbourne, scheduled for March 1998. The Court reserved liberty for either party to apply if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant file and serve within 7 days a notice showing an address for service in compliance with O 7 r 6(2) of the Federal Court Rules.

2. The appeal be listed for hearing during the sittings of a Full Court in Melbourne to be held in March 1998 on a date to be notified by the Victorian District Registrar.

3. Liberty be reserved to either party to apply.

Note:

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG481 of 1997

BETWEEN:	DAVID SARIKAYA APPELLANT
AND:	VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:		BLACK CJ
DATE OF ORDER:		8 DECEMBER 1997
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG481 of 1997

JUDGE:	BLACK CJ
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 1997
PLACE:	MELBOURNE