Spark v Rogers - [2014] WADC 164

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SPARK -v- ROGERS [2014] WADC 164

CORAM: GOETZE DCJ

HEARD: 10 SEPTEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 2835 of 2011

BETWEEN: JULIA DEBRA SPARK
Plaintiff
AND
MATTHEW BRUCE ROGERS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Plaintiff employed by a football club - Defendant a registered player of that club - Defendant allegedly assaulted plaintiff - Settlement of plaintiff's claim arising out of that alleged assault with the football club and its insurer by deed under workers' compensation legislation and by writ at common law - Preliminary issue of whether such deed also compromises this claim by the plaintiff against the defendant

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981

Result:

Preliminary issue answered in favour of plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr R W Bower
Defendant: Mr R P Camm

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Corser & Corser
Defendant: Camm & Associates

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

Gravil v Carroll and Redruth Rugby Football Club [2008] EWCA Civ 689

GOETZE DCJ:

Introduction

On 25 September 2009, the defendant, Matthew Rogers, allegedly assaulted the plaintiff, Julia Spark, by throwing her to the floor at a function held at Perth Football Club (Inc). At that time, Ms Spark was employed by the Club.
Ms Spark duly sought payments of weekly workers' compensation from the Club, through its insurer. Those payments were made. Ultimately, Ms Spark and the Club agreed for her to be paid a fixed sum of money to settle any claim which she may have had under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 and at common law. That compromise was recorded in a deed. A consent judgment was entered into between Ms Spark and the Club in an action in this court.
Ms Spark now brings a common law claim against Mr Rogers for damages for personal injury arising out of the same alleged assault.
A preliminary issue has arisen as to whether Ms Spark's claim against Mr Rogers is barred by operation of the deed of settlement.

Julia Debra Spark

Ms Spark was employed by Perth Football Club (Inc) as a function event and bar manager. She was born on 21 October 1958.

Matthew Bruce Rogers

Mr Rogers played football for the Club. In 2009, he was a Colts player. Later, he was a reserve grade player and ultimately, a league player. On 3 June 2010, he entered into a league playing contract as an employee of the Club.

Ms Spark's injury

On 25 September 2009, the Club hosted the Butcher Medal count. That function was without incident until about 1.30 am. It had mostly wound up. Ms Spark and her staff were clearing away for another function to be held on the following day. Some guests however, had been permitted to remain whilst that clearing was undertaken. One guest still present was Mr Rogers.
Whilst walking from the Phoenix Lounge into the Lathlain Hall within the Club buildings, Mr Rogers is alleged to have grabbed Ms Spark…

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.

Continue reading Spark v Rogers

Details

AGLC: Spark v Rogers [2014] WADC 164
Case: [2014] WADC 164
Decision Date: 28 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, employed by a football club, alleged that the defendant, a registered player of that club, assaulted him. The dispute was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining whether a settlement deed executed between the plaintiff, the football club, and its insurer could also compromise the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The plaintiff had settled his claim arising from the alleged assault by executing a deed under workers' compensation legislation and by writ at common law. The central issue for the court was to decide if this deed could also serve as a compromise of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

The court had to consider whether the settlement deed, executed under workers' compensation legislation and by writ at common law, also included the defendant as a party to the compromise. The plaintiff argued that the deed should be interpreted as a comprehensive settlement, covering all claims arising from the incident. Conversely, the defendant contended that the deed was limited to the claims against the club and its insurer and did not extend to include the player himself. The court was required to interpret the terms of the deed and determine the scope of the settlement, specifically focusing on whether it encompassed the defendant's liability.

The court concluded that the deed did not include the defendant as a party to the compromise. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of the terms of the deed, which explicitly referred to claims against the football club and its insurer, but made no mention of the defendant. The court found that the settlement was intended to cover claims against the club and its insurer and did not extend to claims against individual players. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was not compromised by the settlement deed. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the claim against the defendant to proceed.

The court's final orders confirmed that the settlement deed did not compromise the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The claim against the defendant was therefore not settled and remained open for further proceedings. The court's decision clarified the scope of the settlement deed and reinforced the principle that the terms of a compromise must be clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity regarding the parties involved.

Orders