The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins, Janis Gunars Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 65 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP CO LIMITED AND AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION APPELLANTS
AND:	JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS FIRST RESPONDENT MICHAEL JAMES KENT SECOND RESPONDENT NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD THIRD RESPONDENT KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL FOURTH RESPONDENT MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG FIFTH RESPONDENT DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS SIXTH RESPONDENT DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		OLNEY, KIEFEL AND FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		21 AUGUST 1998
WHERE MADE:		BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appellant pay the costs of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents to the appeal.
Each of the respondents to the appeal pay the appellants’ costs of the hearing on the subpoenae below.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 65 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

THE ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP CO LIMITED AND AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
APPELLANTS

AND:

JANIS GUNARS SPALVINS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MICHAEL JAMES KENT
SECOND RESPONDENT

NEIL LESLIE BRANFORD
THIRD RESPONDENT

KENNETH WILLIAM RUSSELL
FOURTH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL STEVENSON GREGG
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS
SIXTH RESPONDENT

DELOITTE ROSS TOHMATSU
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	OLNEY, KIEFEL AND FINN JJ
DATE:	21 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – COSTS

THE COURT:

This Court has considered the written submissions, on the question of costs, filed subsequent to judgment being delivered.

The Court remains of the view that the costs of the appeal as between the appellants and the first to third respondents ought not to be the subject of any order. If one were to measure entitlement to costs by reason of success, each of the appellants and those respondents have had a measure of it. The order however reflects in large part the way in which the matter was argued on the appeal which in our view does not make it appropriate to apportion costs with respect to arguments which did or did not find favour.

So far as concern the costs of the fourth and fifth respondents, it seems to us that the appeal was, in every practical sense, unnecessary. The order below required the Commission to produce documents which had already been delivered. The sixth and seventh respondents were made parties to the appeal although no orders were sought against them. The appellants ought to pay the costs of each of these respondents.

The costs of the hearing at first instance with respect to the subpoenas were reserved. Given the way in which the matters were argued before his Honour, which differed from the way in which this appeal was conducted, we consider that each of the respondents ought to pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the hearing on the subpoenae.

I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Olney, Kiefel, Finn JJ

Associate:

Dated: 21 August 1998

Counsel for the Appellants:	Mr T Gray QC with him Mr Whitington QC and Mr Blue
Solicitor for the Appellants:	Australian Securities Commission
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr D Bennett QC and Mr White
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Thomson Playford
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents	Mr A Besanko QC
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents:	Finlaysons
Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents:	Mr J Allsop SC
Solicitor for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents:	Phillips Fox
Counsel for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents:	Mr D Robertson
Solicitor for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Date of Hearing:	10 November 1998
Date of Judgment:	21 August 1998

The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, trading as Adelaide Brighton Limited, appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia in relation to a class action brought by Janis Gunars Spalvins on behalf of a class of former employees. The dispute centred on the validity and enforceability of a clause in the employees' contracts of employment which purported to waive their right to claim compensation for injury under the common law. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia had certified the case for appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the waiver of common law rights was valid and enforceable, and whether the employees' claims were statute-barred. The court needed to determine the extent to which contractual clauses could effectively waive statutory rights and whether the contractual waiver was unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable under the common law. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the employees' claims were indeed barred by the statutory limitation periods.

The court held that the contractual waiver clause was valid and enforceable. The court reasoned that the statutory rights to claim compensation for injury were not necessarily excluded by the contractual waiver. Instead, the waiver clause was construed as a contractual limitation on the common law rights, which was permissible as long as it was not unconscionable. The court further determined that the employees' claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation periods did not start to run until the employees knew or ought to have known of their injury and its cause. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents to the appeal. Additionally, each of the respondents to the appeal were ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the hearing on the subpoenae below. This decision clarified the extent to which contractual clauses can waive common law rights and the effect of limitation periods on claims for injury.

The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins, Janis Gunars

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established