WILLIAMS v SONATO Holdings Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 240

WILLIAMS -v- SONATO HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 240

Last Update: 11/11/2003

WILLIAMS -v- SONATO HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 240
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 240
Case No:	CIV:1971/2001	Heard:	4 SEPTEMBER 2003
Coram:	BLAXELL DCJ	Delivered:	06/11/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	KAREN MAREE WILLIAMS SONATO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to strike out action on the ground that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended) prevents an award of damages Whether or not plaintiff has reasonable cause of action Whether or not the action is an abuse of process
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Case References:	Re Monger; Ex parte Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Roofmart WA [2001] WASCA 281 Western Metals Zinc NL v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd & Anor [2003] WASCA 152 Bride v Peat Marwick Mitchell [1989] WAR 383 McNair v Mayne Nickless Ltd t/as Metropolitan Security Services (1997) 17 WAR 191 Re Monger; Ex parte Woodford [1999] WASC 273

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WILLIAMS -v- SONATO HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 240 CORAM : BLAXELL DCJ HEARD : 4 SEPTEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1971 of 2001 BETWEEN : KAREN MAREE WILLIAMS

Plaintiff

AND

SONATO HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out action on the ground that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended) prevents an award of damages - Whether or not plaintiff has reasonable cause of action - Whether or not the action is an abuse of process

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms R A Van Heerwaarden

Defendant : Mr M M Gismondi

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradford & Co

Defendant : Phillips Fox

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

Re Monger; Ex parte Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Roofmart WA [2001] WASCA 281
Western Metals Zinc NL v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd & Anor [2003] WASCA 152

Case(s) also cited:

Bride v Peat Marwick Mitchell [1989] WAR 383
McNair v Mayne Nickless Ltd t/as Metropolitan Security Services (1997) 17 WAR 191
Re Monger; Ex parte Woodford [1999] WASC 273

(Page 3)

1 BLAXELL DCJ: In this matter the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the course of her employment with the defendant. However, the defendant has applied for orders that the statement of claim be struck out, or alternatively that the action be dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant. The ground for this application is that the provisions of s 93C and s 93E of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 prevent any award of damages to the plaintiff.

2 For the purposes of present application I should assume that all of the facts pleaded in the…

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 WILLIAMS v SONATO Holdings Pty Ltd 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: [2003] WADC 240
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Sonata Holdings Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Williams, initiating legal proceedings against Sonata Holdings Pty Ltd for damages. The dispute arose under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended), with Sonata Holdings contending that the Act precluded the plaintiff from claiming damages outside its provisions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff had reasonable cause to pursue the action and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended) entirely barred the plaintiff's claim for damages, and if not, whether the continuation of the action was justified.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that the Act did not absolutely prohibit the plaintiff from seeking damages in this instance. The court found that there were circumstances where damages could be claimed outside the workers' compensation framework. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff had presented a reasonable cause of action and that the proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application to strike out the action was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision confirmed that the plaintiff's action could proceed, subject to the terms of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended).

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.