Sheldon v MLC Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor - [2006] NSWSC 700

CITATION: Sheldon v MLC Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 700

HEARING DATE(S): 7 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 July 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 07/07/2006

DECISION: Plaintiff ordered to attend assessment.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MEDICAL ASSESSMENT – Whether assessment should be ordered to enable all issues to be determined at the trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - Pt 23 r 4, Pt 23 r 7

CASES CITED: McArthur v Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited [2001] QCA 317
Nile v Club Plus Superannuation Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 55
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 945

PARTIES: Richard Sheldon – Plaintiff
MLC Nominees Pty Ltd – First Defendant
MLC Limited – Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5732/05

COUNSEL: B.W. Rayment QC – Plaintiff
A.J. McInerney – Defendants

SOLICITORS: Firths – Plaintiff
Turks Legal – Defendants

Ex tempore
1 The Second Defendant, MLC Limited (“MLC”), seeks an order that the Plaintiff attend a vocational and functional assessment pursuant to Pt 23 r 4 or Pt 23 r 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 . The application is opposed by the Plaintiff on the ground that the conduct of such an assessment is, at best, premature and may ultimately prove unnecessary. 2 The First Defendant (“Nominees”) is the trustee of a superannuation fund known as the Universal Super Scheme (“the Fund”) which was established to provide superannuation benefits for the employees of the Police Department Credit Union Ltd, amongst others. Amongst those benefits are benefits to provide for disablement, both total and temporary and total and permanent. MLC has insured the Fund in respect of claims for all disablement benefits which may be payable to members of the Fund. 3 On or about 5 March 2001 the Plaintiff commenced employment with the Police Department Credit Union Ltd and as a result became a member of the Fund. On about 26 or 27 March 2001 he suffered an injury to his neck and back. In September or October 2001 he lodged a claim against the Fund for total and temporary disablement benefits. That claim was allowed and those benefits were paid up until 12 August 2002. 4 On about 26 March 2002 the Plaintiff lodged an application for total and permanent disablement benefits. That claim was declined by letter dated 11 April 2002. The Plaintiff then requested a reconsideration of the decision in June 2004. On 9 December 2004 the Defendants advised that, after reconsideration of the Plaintiff's claim, it had been declined. 5 These proceedings were then commenced by the Plaintiff by Statement of Claim filed on 7 November 2005. In brief summary, the Amended Statement of Claim alleges that in declining the Plaintiff's claim Nominees has been guilty of breach of trust on numerous grounds, essentially turning on the allegation that it has merely rubber-stamped a decision of MLC that the Plaintiff's claim should be rejected. The Plaintiff alleges that MLC has made…

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 Sheldon v MLC Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2006] NSWSC 700
Decision Date: 07/07/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Sheldon v MLC Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor came before the court where the plaintiff, Sheldon, sought to challenge a medical assessment that had been conducted by the defendants. The dispute centred around the adequacy of this assessment and its relevance to the broader issues of the case, specifically in determining the extent of Sheldon's injuries and associated damages. The court was tasked with deciding whether it was appropriate to order a new medical assessment to ensure all issues could be determined at trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the existing medical assessment was sufficient for the trial or if a new one was necessary. The plaintiff argued that the current assessment was inadequate and potentially prejudicial, while the defendants contended that the existing assessment was comprehensive and sufficient for the purposes of the trial. The court needed to balance the need for a thorough and fair assessment against the potential delay and costs of ordering a new one.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the nature and scope of the existing medical assessment, the specific issues it was intended to address, and the potential impact of any deficiencies on the trial. The court determined that the existing assessment, while not perfect, was sufficiently detailed to allow for a fair determination of the issues. The court also noted that ordering a new assessment would likely cause significant delay and additional costs without necessarily resolving the key issues at hand. Consequently, the court decided against ordering a new medical assessment, finding that the existing one was adequate for the purposes of the trial.

The court's final order was that no new medical assessment would be ordered. The trial would proceed based on the existing medical evidence, with the understanding that both parties could call upon experts to provide further analysis or challenge the findings during the proceedings.

Orders