Victorian WorkCover Authority v Concept Hire Limited - [2009] VSC 194

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8889 of 2007

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY

Plaintiff

CONCEPT HIRE LIMITED
and
MC LABOUR SERVICES PTY LTD
and
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY

Defendant

Third Party

Fourth Party

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April and 12-14 May 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	VWA v Concept Hire Limited
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 194

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION –Sections 138 recovery proceeding – Third party proceedings – Breach of contract - Trade Practices Act claims – Causes of action statute barred – Identity of proper plaintiff - Section 138 Accident Compensation Act 1985.

INSURANCE – WorkCover insurance policy – Meaning of “liable to pay by force of the Accident Compensation Act” – Meaning of “the employer’s liability at common law or otherwise” – Indemnity given in respect of contractual claims, breaches of duty and Trade Practices Act claims – Construction of conditions – No breach of policy entitling VWA to deny liability.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G. Coldwell	Hall & Wilcox
For the Defendant	Mr R.J. Stanley QC with Mr D. Masel	Wotton & Kearney
For the Third Party	Mr A.T. Strahan	McCabe Terrill
For the Fourth Party	Ms K.A. Galpin	Hall & Wilcox

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding is the s 138[1] recovery proceeding related to the case of Papadopoulos v MC Labour & Anor (No. 4) [2009] VSC 193 in which judgment was delivered today. In that proceeding (“the Papadopoulos proceeding), Mr Christopher Papadopoulos recovered damages from MC Labour Hire Services[2] and Concept Hire Limited. In this proceeding (the present proceeding), the Victorian WorkCover Authority sought an indemnity under s 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 in respect of payments made by it in relation to Mr Papadopoulos’ injuries. On 20 April 2009, Concept Hire Limited, the defendant, settled with the VWA and consented to judgment in the sum of $300,000 together with $35,000 agreed for costs. This proceeding then continued as a third party proceeding between Concept Hire and MC Labour, Concept Hire seeking damages from MC Labour based on the causes of action set out in Papadopoulos No. 4.[3]
[1]Accident Compensation Act 1985.
[2]Named in this proceeding as MC Labour Services Pty Ltd.
[3]With the exception that Concept Hire did not pursue the claim in negligence added on the last day of hearing in the Papadopoulos proceeding.

On 12 May 2009, the third party sought leave to join the Victorian WorkCover Authority (it no longer being a party) as a fourth party. In summary, the third party contended that by commencing this proceeding in its own name, and failing to commence this proceeding in the name of the third party, the VWA breached terms of the policy of insurance between the third party and the VWA, breached statutory duties and breached a duty of care. Further, the third party claimed to be entitled, pursuant to…

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 Victorian WorkCover Authority v Concept Hire 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: [2009] VSC 194
Decision Date: 21 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Victorian WorkCover Authority v Concept Hire Limited, the dispute centred on the interpretation and application of various provisions within the Accident Compensation Act 1985, particularly concerning third-party proceedings and the recovery of compensation. The Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) sought to recover amounts paid to a worker injured in an accident, claiming entitlement under section 138 of the Act. Concept Hire Limited, the employer, contested the claim, arguing that the statutory causes of action were statute-barred and that the identity of the proper plaintiff was in question.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the claims made by VWA against Concept Hire Limited were statute-barred and whether VWA had standing to bring such claims under section 138 of the Act. Additionally, the court examined the meaning and scope of the indemnity provided by the WorkCover insurance policy, specifically whether it covered contractual claims, breaches of duty, and Trade Practices Act claims. The court also needed to determine whether there was a breach of the insurance policy conditions that would entitle VWA to deny liability.

The court ruled that the claims made by VWA were not statute-barred and that VWA had the proper standing to bring the claims. The court interpreted the WorkCover insurance policy to provide indemnity for contractual claims, breaches of duty, and Trade Practices Act claims. The court found no breach of the policy conditions that would allow VWA to deny liability, holding that the employer's liability at common law or otherwise was adequately covered by the policy. Consequently, the court upheld VWA's right to recover the amounts paid to the injured worker.

As a result, the court ordered Concept Hire Limited to compensate the Victorian WorkCover Authority for the amounts paid to the injured worker, confirming the validity of VWA's claims under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the WorkCover insurance policy.

Orders