New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: TOLL PTY LTD v DAKIC and ANOTHER [2006] NSWCA 58 HEARING DATE(S): 25 November 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
28 March 2006JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Santow JA at 18; Brownie AJA at 145 DECISION: (1) Appeal dismissed. ; (2) The appellant to pay respondents’ costs. ; (3) Cross-appeal allowed. ; (4) Order in proceedings No. 107 of 2004 that the first defendant pay to the plaintiff the costs payable by him to the second defendant. ; (5) First cross-respondent pay the cross-appellant’s costs and have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act if otherwise qualified. CATCHWORDS: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Whether definition of “injury” covers vehicle-loading and unloading operations under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919 (NSW) (“MACA”). - NEGLIGENCE - Whether compensation received as a result of a back injury suffered by employee removing heavy trailer ramp in confined space due to vehicle overhang after ramp had been used to load utilities onto a semi-trailer was governed by the statutory insurance scheme under MACA or by the statutory scheme under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) – Whether injury caused by an unsafe system of work – Whether injury the result of and caused during the use or operation of a vehicle by a defect in that vehicle – Whether any defect in the vehicle in its use or operation – Discussion of causation. - PROCEDURE – Issue estoppel. - COSTS – Whether Bullock order should have been awarded LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 s3
Road Transport (General) Act 1999
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s40CASES CITED: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 26, (2005) 79 ALJR 1079
Almeida v Universal Dye Works (No. 2) [2001] NSWCA 156
AMP General Insurance Ltd v Mayne Nickless Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 61
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Canterbury Municipal Council v Taylor (No. 2) [2002] NSWCA 96
Egri v DRG Australian Limited [1988] 19 NSWLR 600
Government Insurance Office of NSW v R J Green & Lloyd Pty Ltd (1966) 114 CLR 437, [1966] HCA 6
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Insurance Commission (WA) v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89, (2004) 78 ALJR 821
Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 208 ALR 1
March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd [1990-91] 171 CLR 506
Mayne Nickless Ltd v Symen [2001] NSWCA 292, (2001) 34 MVR 18
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994-1995) 182 CLR 1
Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271
Somodaj v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 285
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Sved v Council of Municipality of Woollahra (1998) NSW Conv R 55-842
Tambree v Travel Compensation Fund and Ors [2004] NSWCA 24
Travel Compensation Fund v Tambree t/as R Tambree and Associates (2006) 80 ALJR 183
Walsh v Whiteley (1888) 21 QBD 371
Zurich Australia Insurance Ltd v CSR Ltd (2001) 52…
Continue reading Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic [2006] NSWCA 58
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between Toll Pty Ltd and Mr. Dakic, an employee of Toll, regarding compensation for a back injury Mr. Dakic sustained. The injury occurred while he was removing a heavy trailer ramp in a confined space, due to vehicle overhang, after the ramp had been used to load utilities onto a semi-trailer. The central question was whether this injury fell under the statutory insurance scheme of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919* (NSW) or the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The matter was heard by Giles and Santow JJA and Brownie AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the definition of "injury" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919* encompassed vehicle-loading and unloading operations. Secondly, the court needed to ascertain whether Mr. Dakic's injury was caused by an unsafe system of work, or if it was the result of and caused during the use or operation of a vehicle, or by a defect in the vehicle. The court also had to examine the nature of any defect in the vehicle's use or operation and discuss the principles of causation in this context. Finally, the court considered issues of issue estoppel and whether a *Bullock* order for costs should have been awarded.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle in the manner contemplated by the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919*. Instead, the court found that the injury was primarily caused by the system of work employed by Toll, specifically the unsafe method of ramp removal in a confined space. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to the definition of "injury" under the relevant legislation and discussed the concept of causation, concluding that the proximate cause of the injury was the unsafe work practices rather than the use or operation of the vehicle itself. The court also addressed the issue of issue estoppel and costs.
The appeal was dismissed, and Toll Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The cross-appeal was allowed, and an order was made that the first defendant pay the plaintiff the costs payable by him to the second defendant. The first cross-respondent was ordered to pay the cross-appellant’s costs and was granted a certificate under the *Suitors’ Fund Act* if otherwise qualified.
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the definition of "injury" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919* encompassed vehicle-loading and unloading operations. Secondly, the court needed to ascertain whether Mr. Dakic's injury was caused by an unsafe system of work, or if it was the result of and caused during the use or operation of a vehicle, or by a defect in the vehicle. The court also had to examine the nature of any defect in the vehicle's use or operation and discuss the principles of causation in this context. Finally, the court considered issues of issue estoppel and whether a *Bullock* order for costs should have been awarded.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle in the manner contemplated by the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919*. Instead, the court found that the injury was primarily caused by the system of work employed by Toll, specifically the unsafe method of ramp removal in a confined space. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to the definition of "injury" under the relevant legislation and discussed the concept of causation, concluding that the proximate cause of the injury was the unsafe work practices rather than the use or operation of the vehicle itself. The court also addressed the issue of issue estoppel and costs.
The appeal was dismissed, and Toll Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The cross-appeal was allowed, and an order was made that the first defendant pay the plaintiff the costs payable by him to the second defendant. The first cross-respondent was ordered to pay the cross-appellant’s costs and was granted a certificate under the *Suitors’ Fund Act* if otherwise qualified.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed. ; (2) The appellant to pay respondents’ costs. ; (3) Cross-appeal allowed. ; (4) Order in proceedings No. 107 of 2004 that the first defendant pay to the plaintiff the costs payable by him to the second defendant. ; (5) First cross-respondent pay the cross-appellant’s costs and have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act if otherwise qualified.
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.