Sayed v Prestige Building Constructions Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWSC 997

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sayed v Prestige Building Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 997

Hearing dates:

11 August 2025

Decision date:

03 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Ierace J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), proceedings 2020/00333156 in the District Court of New South Wales be transferred to the Common Law List of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, General List;

(2)    No order as to costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Transfer of proceedings to higher court — Whether amount to be awarded to plaintiff if successful is likely to exceed jurisdictional limit of the District Court

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 140, 140(1), 140(3)(b)(i), 140(3)(b)(ii)

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 4

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Adam Sayed (Plaintiff)
Prestige Building Constructions Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Catlin Australia Pty Ltd as agent for and on behalf of Underwriting Members of Syndicate 2003 at Lloyd’s (Second Defendant)
Burak Din (Third Defendant)
Royal Transport NSW Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
T Hickey (Plaintiff)
A Joseph (Second Defendant)

Solicitors:
Lionheart Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Lander & Rogers (Second Defendant)

File Number(s):

2024/447411

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: By amended summons filed on 6 June 2025, Adam Sayed (the plaintiff), seeks an order that proceedings be transferred from the District Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

2. There are four defendants in this matter. The first and fourth defendant consent to the orders sought and the second defendant neither consents to nor opposes them. The third defendant has not taken an active part in the proceedings at any point in time, and his position with respect to the orders sought is therefore unknown.

3. Background

4. On 23 November 2020, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the District Court by way of statement of claim, claiming an action in negligence against the first three defendants. An amended statement of claim was filed on 20 September 2024 joining the fourth defendant in the proceedings. The claim in negligence is said to arise from injuries suffered by the plaintiff on or around 24 November 2017 in the context of his employment by the fourth defendant, when he was directed to collect a delivery of steel mesh and transfer the material to a construction site for delivery. It is alleged that a crane, operated by the third defendant, caused the steel mesh to come into contact with the plaintiff and thereby injure him.

5. The basis of the plaintiff’s application

6. In support of the amended summons, the plaintiff relies upon an affidavit by his solicitor, Majed Issa, sworn on 19 February 2025. In his affidavit, Mr Issa states that based on evidence available at the time of commencement of the matter in the District Court, he was of the view that the quantum of damages sought by the plaintiff fell within the jurisdictional limit of that Court. At the time of commencement, the jurisdictional limit of the District Court $750,000, although it has been increased to $1,250,000 as of 16 December 2022: s 4 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).

7. The plaintiff has served multiple medico-legal reports on the defendants. They include reports by: Dr Uthum Dias, Occupational Physician, dated 10 September 2021; Dr James Athanasou, Consultant in Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation, dated 24 September 2021; Dr Enrico Parmegiani, Consultant and Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 30 September 2021; and Dr Drew Dixon, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 21 October 2021. It also includes a Personal Injury Commission Medical Assessment Certificate by Dr Mark Burns, Specialist in Occupational Medicine, dated 27 September 2022 and two reports by Ms Annarie Hildebrand, Occupational Therapist, dated 31 October 2023.

8. According to Mr Issa’s affidavit, the plaintiff’s condition has deteriorated following assessments with the aforementioned medico-legal experts, and he now requires additional treatment. His injuries, loss and damages were first set out in a statement of particulars filed on 21 January 2021. However, due to the plaintiff’s deteriorating condition and need for further treatment, his head of damages in relation to economic loss, future treatment and future care has been revised. An amended statement of particulars now details that the total quantum of damages sought by the plaintiff is $2,991,342.

9. Governing legislation

10. Proceedings in the District Court that concern a claim for damages arising from personal injury may be transferred to this Court pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act, which relevantly provides:

“140   Transfer of proceedings to higher court

(1)   The Supreme Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party to proceedings before the District Court or the Local Court, order that the proceedings, including any cross-claim in the proceedings, be transferred to the Supreme Court.

…

(3)   Proceedings in the District Court on a claim for damages arising from personal injury or death are not to be transferred to the Supreme Court under this section unless the Supreme Court is satisfied:

(a)   in the case of a motor accident claim or a workplace injury damages claim:

(i)   that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, if successful, is likely to be more than $1,000,000, and

(ii)   that the case involves complex legal issues or issues of general public importance, or

(b)   in any other case:

(i)   that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, if successful, is likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, or

(ii)   that there is other sufficient reason for hearing the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

(4)   Proceedings in the Local Court are not to be transferred to a higher court under this section unless the higher court is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for hearing the proceedings in the higher court.

(5)   This section extends to proceedings that have been transferred to the District Court or the Local Court pursuant to a previous transfer order under this Division or under Division 2.”

11. Accordingly, the question to be determined in considering the transfer application is whether the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, if successful, is likely to exceed $1,250,000; alternatively, whether there is “other sufficient reason” for hearing the proceedings in the Supreme Court: ss 140(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Consideration and determination

12. Having considered the material relied upon by the plaintiff, in particular, the plaintiff’s diminished prospects of long-term employment consequent to his injuries and the affidavit of Mr Issa concerning the revision of the plaintiff’s head of damages by his legal representatives, I am satisfied that if the plaintiff is successful, the award of damages may well exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the basis for transfer as set out in s 140(3)(b)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

13. I make the following orders.

1. Pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), proceedings 2020/00333156 in the District Court of New South Wales be transferred to the Common Law List of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, General List;

2. No order as to costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 September 2025