Taylor v Centennial Newswtan Pty Ltd - [2008] NSWDC 92

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT COURT

CITATION:
Taylor v Centennial Newswtan Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 92

FILE NUMBER(S):
Newcastle 122/07

HEARING DATE(S):
8 May 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 May 2008

PARTIES:
Roy Taylor ( Plaintiff)
Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:
Sidis DCJ

COUNSEL:
B D Dooley SC - P M O'Rourke ( Plaintiff)

P J Menary (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Whitelaw McDonald (Plaintiff)

Lander & Rogers (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS COMPENSATION
election to pursue permanent loss compensation
whether the District Court has residual jurisdiction under s 151A(3)(b) of Workers Compensation Act 1987
statute not amended following legislative reforms

LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002
District Court Act 1973
Workers Compensation Act 1984
Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED:
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364
Deveigne & Anor v Askar (2007) 239 ALR 370
KBRV Resort Operations Pty Ltd v Chilcott (2001) 51 NSWLR 516
Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] CH 502

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
1. The proceedings are dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings and those involved in the motion.
3. The exhibits may be returned.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

On 14 March 2007 the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in the District Court Coal Miners’ Workers Compensation List.

The proceedings sought compensation, including permanent loss compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1987. Those proceedings were commenced against Elcom Collieries as the first defendant and Centennial Mining as the second defendant. Those proceedings were discontinued on 15 June 2007.

On 24 April 2007 the plaintiff filed in the District Court Common Law Division a statement of claim seeking damages at common law. Those proceedings were commenced against Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd. The defendant has applied to the Court to strike out the claim for common law damages, asserting that, by filing the statement of claim in the court’s Coal Miners’ Workers Compensation List, he was commencing proceedings in the Compensation Court to recover …. permanent loss compensation and that he was therefore bound by an election to pursue permanent loss compensation and was no longer entitled to recover common law damages in respect of his claimed injuries.

The plaintiff responded with two arguments.

(1) that the proceedingswere a nullity; and

(2) that s 151A(3)(b) had no operation on proceedings commenced in the District Court.

ISSUE 1 - NULLITY

Neither of the defendants named in the statement of claim filed in the Coal Miners’ Workers Compensation List had any legal status. Search documents obtained through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission established that there are no corporate entities operating under the names of the two nominated defendants. It was argued therefore by the plaintiff that, where the party joined as a defendant was nonexistent, there was no existing action and the proceedings were a nullity to which the rules of the Court such as those applying to amendment cannot apply.

The plaintiff’s employer at the time of the claimed injury was Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd,…

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 Taylor v Centennial Newswtan 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: [2008] NSWDC 92
Decision Date: 13 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Taylor versus Centennial Newswtan Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought compensation for permanent loss following a workplace injury. The case was heard by the District Court of New South Wales, which had to determine whether it retained the authority to adjudicate over the plaintiff's claim under section 151A(3)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The crux of the dispute hinged on whether the District Court's jurisdiction was diminished by legislative changes that were enacted without altering the specific statutory provision in question.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of section 151A(3)(b) and whether the court's jurisdiction to hear claims for permanent loss compensation had been affected by subsequent legislative reforms. The court needed to ascertain whether the legislative intent to transfer jurisdiction to other tribunals implicitly revoked the District Court's authority, or if the provision remained valid and applicable.

The court found that the legislative reforms did not explicitly repeal or amend section 151A(3)(b), and thus, the residual jurisdiction of the District Court was not extinguished. However, the court concluded that the District Court did not retain jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for permanent loss compensation, as the legislative intent indicated a transfer of such jurisdiction to other tribunals. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that legislative intent must be given effect, and in this instance, the clear intention was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in other specified tribunals. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings and those involved in the motion, with the exhibits to be returned.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings are dismissed. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings and those involved in the motion. 3. The exhibits may be returned.

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.