Woolworths Limited v Walker - [2012] NSWSC 914

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woolworths Limited v Walker [2012] NSWSC 914
Hearing dates: 8 August 2012
Decision date: 09 August 2012
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
The Summons filed 27 July 2012 is dismissed.
Woolworths Limited is ordered to pay Mr Walkers' costs of the Summons, excluding the costs of the appearances before the Registrar and Johnson J on 6 August 2012.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - cross-vesting application - slip and fall incident in Wodonga - proceedings commenced in District Court at Albury - application for transfer of proceedings to Victoria - whether transfer "in the interests of justice" - application for transfer refused
Legislation Cited: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
Cases Cited: BHP Billiton Limited v Schultz [2004] HCA 61; 221 CLR 400
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Woolworths Limited (Plaintiff)
John Robert Walker (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr DI Richards (Plaintiff)
Mr MN Hammond (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Herbert Geer (Plaintiff)
Slater & Gordon (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/234687
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: By Summons filed 27 July 2012, the Plaintiff, Woolworths Limited ("Woolworths") makes application for transfer to Victoria under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 ("the Cross-Vesting Act") of civil proceedings commenced in the District Court of New South Wales by the Defendant, John Robert Walker.

The New South Wales Proceedings

By Statement of Claim filed in the Albury Registry of the District Court of New South Wales on 3 July 2012, Mr Walker sues Woolworths for damages arising from a slip and fall incident on 26 November 2010 at the Safeway Supermarket in Wodonga, Victoria. Mr Walker alleges that a rainstorm had occurred on that day and, as a result, rainwater had entered the premises through the store entrance. It is alleged that store employees barricaded one entrance to the store and removed rainwater from the floor at that entrance, but did not barricade nor remove rainwater from another entrance used by Mr Walker to enter the premises.

Mr Walker alleges that he slipped on the wet floor and suffered injury. According to the Statement of Claim, it is alleged that Woolworths owed duties to Mr Walker at common law, under s.14B Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and s.23 Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and that Woolworths breached its duty of care to Mr Walker in various ways particularised in the Statement of Claim, thereby giving rise to an entitlement to damages.

The Statement of Claim also recites the fact that on 5 April 2012, a Medical Panel certified, for the purposes of s.28LZG(2)(a) Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), that Mr Walker had suffered a degree of impairment in excess of five percent after having assessed Mr Walker's impairment in accordance with that Act, and that Mr Walker was entitled to institute and prosecute proceedings for the recovery of damages…

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 Woolworths Limited v Walker 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: [2012] NSWSC 914
Decision Date: 09 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woolworths Limited versus Walker, the District Court of Victoria considered an application for the transfer of proceedings from the District Court at Albury to the Victorian court. The dispute arose from a slip and fall incident that occurred at a Woolworths store in Wodonga, with the plaintiff, Walker, alleging that the store's negligence caused her injuries. The defendant, Woolworths Limited, applied to transfer the proceedings to the Victorian court on the basis that it would be in the interests of justice to do so.

The court was required to determine whether the transfer of proceedings was appropriate under the relevant legislative provisions. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the transfer would facilitate the just, speedy, and economical resolution of the dispute, taking into account factors such as the location of witnesses, the availability of evidence, and the convenience of the parties. The court also needed to assess whether there were any potential disadvantages to the transfer, such as the impact on the administration of justice or the rights of the parties.

In ruling on the application, the court found that the transfer of proceedings was not in the interests of justice. The court considered that the majority of witnesses and evidence were located in New South Wales, where the incident occurred. The court also noted that the proceedings had already been underway in the District Court at Albury for some time, and that there was no compelling reason to transfer the proceedings to Victoria. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the transfer of proceedings would not result in any unnecessary delay or inconvenience to the parties, and concluded that the application should be refused.

Orders