Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd - [2019] NSWSC 1452

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1452
Hearing dates: 18 October 2019
Date of orders: 18 October 2019
Decision date: 18 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The motion is dismissed.
(2) The second defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the motion.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — pleadings — striking out — plaintiff limited to pre-filing statement under s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) — whether amended statement of claim was “materially different” to proposed statement of claim forming part of pre-filing statement
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.28
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), Pt 6 Div 3, ss 315, 316, 318
Cases Cited: General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Hall v Ecoline Pty Ltd t/as Treetop Adventure Park [2018] NSWSC 1732
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Road Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42
Texts Cited: Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (4th ed, 2003)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: HD Projects Pty Ltd (Applicant/Second Defendant)
Sohrab Sohailee (Respondent/Plaintiff)
City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Rickard (Applicant/Second Defendant)
Mr J Sleight (Respondent/Plaintiff)
Mr B Jones (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Stiles Lawyers (Applicant/Second Defendant)
David Legal (Respondent/Plaintiff)
McMahons Lawyers (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/72027
Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries in an accident on a work site on 23 March 2015.
As set out in para 10 of an amended statement of claim filed on 13 August 2019, the plaintiff says that, whilst he was bending down picking up some end caps, a wall panel fell on him and he sustained injury. He pleads in para 11 of the amended statement of claim that the wall panel fell as a result of being improperly placed against the wall near where he was working.
The plaintiff has sued two defendants. The first defendant is alleged to have been the builder and developer in respect of the building site. The plaintiff was employed by the second defendant. It is alleged that the second defendant carried on business as a contract supplier and installer of wall panels.
There does not seem to be any dispute that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment with the second defendant when performing work on a building site operated by the first defendant.
The matter comes before the Court today on the application of the second defendant employer. By way of a motion filed on 18 September 2019, the second defendant seeks an order that the statement of claim filed on 13 August 2019 be struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform…

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 Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty 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: [2019] NSWSC 1452
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Sohailee and City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd. The plaintiff, Sohailee, sought to amend his statement of claim beyond what was initially proposed in his pre-filing statement under section 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). City Projects & Developments opposed the amendment, arguing that the proposed statement of claim was materially different from the pre-filing statement. The court was tasked with determining whether the amendment was permissible under the statutory framework and whether it constituted a material departure from the pre-filing statement.

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim was materially different from the pre-filing statement, thereby breaching the statutory restrictions on amendments. The court examined the provisions of section 318, which limits the scope of amendments to a pre-filing statement to ensure that the defendant is not unfairly prejudiced. The court had to balance the statutory requirements with the principles of fairness and justice in civil proceedings.

In determining the matter, the court closely examined the contents of both the pre-filing statement and the proposed amended statement of claim. The court found that the amendments did not introduce new causes of action or significantly alter the nature of the claims. The changes were largely procedural and did not prejudice the defendant in terms of their ability to respond to the claims. The court held that the amendments were not materially different and thus permissible under the statute. Consequently, the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with the amended statement of claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim be accepted as filed, and the proceedings could continue with the amended claims. The defendant's application to strike out the amended statement of claim was dismissed.

Orders