Sukumar v Weir Minerals Australia Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sukumar v Weir Minerals Australia Limited [2019] NSWDC 48
Hearing dates: 26, 27 February 2019
Date of orders: 08 March 2019
Decision date: 08 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Grant leave to the plaintiff nunc pro tunc to commence these proceedings on 20 June 2018.
(2)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $448,483.04.
(3)   Order that each party pay his or its own costs of the proceedings.
(4)   Grant leave to approach my Associate within 7 days if either party wishes to seek a different costs order.

Catchwords:

TORTS – negligence – plaintiff slipped on mixture of swarf, coolant and oil leaking from employer’s machine – injury to right shoulder, lumbar spine and knee – proceedings commenced more than 3 years after date of injury – whether leave of the court should be given to bring proceedings out of time – what is fair and just in the circumstances – whether reasonable explanation for delay provided- whether defendant has suffered prejudice - s 151D Workers Compensation Act 1987

 

TORTS – negligence – claim for work injury damages must be referred to mediation before proceedings can be commenced – mediation unsuccessful - no mediation certificate provided – s 318A(4), 318B(2) and 318E(4) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998

 

TORTS – liability - negligence – contributory negligence

TORTS – damages – past economic loss – future economic loss – must have at least 15% whole person impairment – s 151G and s 151H(1) Workers Compensation Act 1987
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2013
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workers Compensation Regulation 2016
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited: Egri v DRG Australian Limited [1988] 19 NSWLR 600
Howley v Principal Healthcare Finance Pty Limited [2014] NSWCA 447
Itek Graphix Limited v Elliott [2002] NSWCA 104; (2002) 54 NSWLR 207
Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524
South Brisbane Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541
Wilkinson v Perisher Blue Pty Limited [2012] NSWCA 250
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sundara Sukumar (Plaintiff)
Weir Minerals Australia Limited (Defendant
Representation:

Counsel:
L King SC with I Judd (Plaintiff)
L Robison (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Slater & Gordon (Plaintiff)
Barker Henley (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/198046

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 2 February 2012 the plaintiff was injured while working at the defendant’s factory. He slipped on the floor near the milling machine which he was operating. He injured his right shoulder, his lumbar spine and his right knee.

  2. By a Statement of Claim filed on 20 June 2018 the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence caused injury, disability and loss. Such a claim is governed by Pt 5 Div 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

  3. By s 151D of the 1987 Act a person is not entitled to commence court proceedings for such damages more than three years…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sukumar v Weir Minerals Australia Limited 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] NSWDC 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sukumar v Weir Minerals Australia Limited was a torts case in which the plaintiff alleged he suffered injuries from a slip on a mixture of swarf, coolant and oil leaking from a machine owned by the defendant. The plaintiff’s injuries included a right shoulder injury, lumbar spine injury and a knee injury. The proceedings were commenced more than three years after the date of the injury. The plaintiff sought leave of the court to bring the proceedings out of time, and for judgment against the defendant for damages. The court was required to consider whether leave should be given under section 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and what is fair and just in the circumstances. The court also had to determine whether the defendant had suffered prejudice, whether the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, and whether the plaintiff had a minimum 15% whole person impairment as required by sections 151G and 151H(1) of the Act.

The court found that the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the proceedings and that the defendant had not suffered prejudice. The court also found that the plaintiff had at least a 15% whole person impairment. The court held that it was fair and just to grant the plaintiff leave to bring the proceedings out of time. The court also found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and reduced the damages by 25%. The court awarded the plaintiff $448,483.04 in damages.

The court ordered that leave be granted to the plaintiff to commence the proceedings on 20 June 2018. The court also ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the amount of $448,483.04. The court ordered that each party pay their own costs of the proceedings. The court further ordered that either party could approach the Associate within seven days if they wished to seek a different costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to the plaintiff nunc pro tunc to commence these proceedings on 20 June 2018.

(2) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $448,483.04.

(3) Order that each party pay his or its own costs of the proceedings.

(4) Grant leave to approach my Associate within 7 days if either party wishes to seek a different costs order.

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.