Tyler v Ryad Engineering Pty Ltd - [2004] WADC 209

TYLER -v- RYAD ENGINEERING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 209

Last Update: 08/11/2004

TYLER -v- RYAD ENGINEERING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 209
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WADC 209
Case No:	CIVO:76/2004	Heard:	1 SEPTEMBER 2004
Coram:	CHANEY DCJ	Delivered:	01/09/2004
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to commence proceedings granted

Parties:	SCOTT WALTER TYLER RYAD ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Negligence Claim against employer Leave to commence proceedings No application prior to repeal of former provision Preservation of right to seek leave
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 19811996, s 93D Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
Case References:	Duca v Aherns Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 85 Hanna-Pauley v David Jones Ltd [2004] WADC 69 Henderson v Kcut Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 13 Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust (2001) 25 WAR 1

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : TYLER -v- RYAD ENGINEERING PTY LTD [2004] WADC 209 CORAM : CHANEY DCJ HEARD : 1 SEPTEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : Delivered Extemporaneously on 1 SEPTEMBER 2004 typed from tape and edited by Trial Judge FILE NO/S : CIVO 76 of 2004

MATTER : IN THE MATTER OF s 93D(4) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 19811996 BETWEEN : SCOTT WALTER TYLER

Plaintiff

AND

RYAD ENGINEERING PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Claim against employer - Leave to commence proceedings - No application prior to repeal of former provision - Preservation of right to seek leave

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 19811996, s 93D
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to commence proceedings granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T P Heard

Defendant : Mr M Campbell

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradford & Co

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 202 ALR 428
Duca v Aherns Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 85
Hanna-Pauley v David Jones Ltd [2004] WADC 69
Henderson v Kcut Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 13

Case(s) also cited:

Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust (2001) 25 WAR 1

(Page 3)

1 CHANEY DCJ: This is an application for leave pursuant to section 93D of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 in the form which it took prior to the amendments which came into effect on 5 October 1999. In this case the application for leave was made by originating summons filed on 8 April 2004. The injury to the plaintiff occurred on 8 December 1998. As at the date that the amendments to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act came into force, no application for leave had been commenced or determined.

2 There have been at least three cases, and possibly more, in this Court dealing with the consequences of the decision of the High Court in Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 202 ALR 428.

3 That case concerned an injured worker who had made an application for leave…

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.

Continue reading Tyler v Ryad Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Tyler v Ryad Engineering Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 209
Case: [2004] WADC 209
Decision Date: 1 SEPTEMBER 2004 typed from tape and edited by Trial Judge

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tyler v Ryad Engineering Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Tyler, sought to bring a claim for negligence against his employer, Ryad Engineering Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Tyler’s claim arose from an incident at work which he alleged resulted in injuries due to the employer's negligence. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Tyler was entitled to commence proceedings despite not having applied for leave prior to the repeal of a relevant legislative provision that previously required such an application. The Court had to determine if the abolition of the requirement to apply for leave before initiating proceedings could be interpreted as preserving the right to seek leave post-repeal.

The Court considered the language and effect of the legislative changes and whether the abolition of the pre-commencement leave requirement could be seen as preserving an existing right to seek leave. It was held that the legislative repeal did not extinguish the right to seek leave to commence proceedings, and therefore, Tyler was entitled to apply for leave after the commencement of the new legislation. The Court reasoned that the absence of a requirement to apply for leave prior to proceedings did not mean that the right to seek leave was extinguished, but rather, it allowed for the application for leave to be made at any time during the proceedings.

As a result, the Court granted leave for Tyler to commence his claim against his employer for negligence. This decision recognises that the abolition of a procedural requirement does not necessarily terminate the substantive right to which that requirement pertained. The Court's ruling ensures that individuals like Tyler are not disadvantaged by legislative changes and can still seek redress for their claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to commence proceedings granted

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.