Spratt v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd; Spratt v Rowe

Case [2016] NSWCA 192

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Spratt v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd; Spratt v Rowe [2016] NSWCA 192
Hearing dates:27 July 2016
Decision date: 04 August 2016
Before: McColl JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [2];
Leeming JA at [3]
Decision:

In 2016/17278:

 

1. Amend the parties so that the first defendant is Perilya Broken Hill Ltd.

 

2. Dismiss the summons filed 18 January 2016 with costs.

 

In 2016/101717:

 1. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs.
Catchwords:

TORTS – employee injured in motor vehicle accident at work – employee claimed under workers compensation and motor accident legislation – Workers Compensation Commission determined injury to cervical spine caused by accident – Medical Assessor subsequently determined that injury to cervical spine not caused by accident – plaintiff claimed issue estoppel bound the Medical Assessor – whether issue estoppel could exist given motor accident claim was against fellow employee for which employer was vicariously liable – whether motor accidents legislation excluded operation of issue estoppel in relation to causation – whether issue estoppel was a “common law principle” to which the Medical Assessor was subject by reason of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines

  PRACTICE – requirement to prepare paginated affidavits and appeal books – requirement to formulate grounds of judicial review with precision – requirement to file signed submissions
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Constitution, s 77(iii)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 58, 62, 63, 65, 109, 131
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.12, 51.36, 59.3
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 66, 67
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 294, 350
Cases Cited: Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853
CSR Timber Products Pty Ltd v Weathertex Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 49; 83 NSWLR 433
Egri v DRG Australia Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR 600
Kable v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 243; 293 ALR 719
Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; 220 CLR 363
Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 101
Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown [2011] HCA 22; 242 CLR 647
McKee v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2008] NSWCA 163; 71 NSWLR 609
Motor Accidents Authority of NSW v Mills [2010] NSWCA 82; 78 NSWLR 125
Pioneer Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Columbus Capital Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 78
Rodger v De Gelder [2011] NSWCA 97; 80 NSWLR 594
Rodger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211; 71 MVR 514
Somodaj v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 285
Somodaj v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd [1961] SR NSW 305
The Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353
Warth v Lafsky [2014] NSWCA 94; 66 MVR 445
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

2016/17278:
Mr Nathan Spratt…

Continue reading Spratt v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd; Spratt v Rowe

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spratt v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd; Spratt v Rowe [2016] NSWCA 192
Case
[2016] NSWCA 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings concerned an employee, Mr. Spratt, who sustained an injury to his cervical spine in a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the course of his employment with Perilya Broken Hill Ltd. Mr. Spratt had made claims under both workers compensation and motor accident legislation. The Workers Compensation Commission had initially determined that the injury was caused by the accident, but a Medical Assessor later concluded otherwise. Mr. Spratt contended that the Medical Assessor was bound by the earlier determination of causation due to the doctrine of issue estoppel. The proceedings were heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether issue estoppel could operate in circumstances where the motor accident claim was brought against a fellow employee, for which the employer was vicariously liable, and whether the relevant motor accidents legislation excluded the application of issue estoppel in relation to the question of causation. Further, the Court considered whether issue estoppel constituted a "common law principle" to which the Medical Assessor was bound by virtue of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel did not apply. It reasoned that the requirements for issue estoppel were not met, particularly concerning the identity of the parties and the nature of the proceedings. The Court found that the motor accident legislation did not operate to exclude issue estoppel, but that the doctrine was not applicable on the facts. Furthermore, the Court determined that issue estoppel was not a "common law principle" to which the Medical Assessor was bound under the Permanent Impairment Guidelines in the manner contended by Mr. Spratt.

In the result, the Court of Appeal ordered that the parties in one proceeding be amended to name Perilya Broken Hill Ltd as the first defendant, and that the summons filed on 18 January 2016 be dismissed with costs. In the other proceeding, the Court dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

In 2016/17278:

1. Amend the parties so that the first defendant is Perilya Broken Hill Ltd.

2. Dismiss the summons filed 18 January 2016 with costs.

In 2016/101717:

1. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs.

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.