Williams v Rodway - [2004] NSWSC 438

CITATION: Williams v Rodway & Anor [2004] NSWSC 438

HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

DECISION: (i) Plaintiff's claim for domestic assistance struck out; (ii) claim transferred to the District Court.

CATCHWORDS: Motor Accidents Act 1988 - claim for damages for domestic assistance - Supreme Court jurisdiction - transfer to District Court

LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1983, s143
Motor Accidents Act 1988, s40A, s50A, s52(1A)(b), s72

CASES CITED: Atikulla v Sefton [2001] NSWCA 385; 53 NSWLR 574
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Manderson v Ellis [2002] NSWCA 289; 37 MVR 214

PARTIES :
Gordon Douglas Williams - Plaintiff
Martin John Rodway - 1st Defendant
Reece Williams - 2nd Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20268/02

COUNSEL: B Gower (Sol) - Plaintiff
IM Newbrun - Defendants

SOLICITORS: GH Healey & Co with Graeme R Jensen & Co - Plaintiff
Blake Dawson Waldron - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Monday 31 May 2004

20268/02 Gordon Douglas Williams v Martin John Rodway & Anor
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: On 14 June 2002 the plaintiff, Gordon Douglas Williams filed a statement of claim in this Court claiming from the defendants damages pursuant to the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (“the Act”), for injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 14 June 1999. Included in the claim, as an identified head of damages, was a claim for compensation for domestic assistance, pursuant to the principles stated in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161. Through their third party insurer (NRMA Ltd, hereinafter “NRMA”), the defendants filed a notice of grounds of defence. They admitted liability for breach of duty of care and alleged that the plaintiff had contributed to his own injury; they particularised this claim. Additionally, in paragraph 3, they pleaded:

Atikulla v Sefton

2 By notice of motion filed on 13 December 2002 the defendants claimed orders as follows:

“1. The Plaintiff’s claims for domestic assistance be dismissed.

2. The matter be transferred to the District Court of NSW at Sydney.”

“(a) That the Plaintiff has commenced and maintained the claim for domestic assistance in breach of s50A of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (as amended).

(b) That the Plaintiff has commenced and maintained the claim for domestic assistance in breach of the authority of the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Atikullah v Sefton (5.11.01).

3 On the hearing of the notice of motion the defendants pursued both substantive orders, that is, the claim for the dismissal…

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 Williams v Rodway

Details

AGLC: Williams v Rodway [2004] NSWSC 438
Case: [2004] NSWSC 438
Decision Date: 31 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams sued Rodway for damages relating to a motor accident. The dispute involved the scope of domestic assistance claimable under the Motor Accidents Act 1988, and the appropriate jurisdiction for such claims. The Supreme Court heard the matter, but later transferred it to the District Court. The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the Act, specifically the extent of domestic assistance claimable and the court's jurisdiction in such matters. The court needed to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to hear claims for domestic assistance under the Motor Accidents Act and, if not, whether the matter should be transferred to the District Court. The court found that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims for domestic assistance and transferred the matter to the District Court, as per the statutory framework. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional boundaries set out in the Motor Accidents Act, ensuring that cases are heard in the appropriate forum.

Orders