District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Arab [2024] NSWDC 523 Hearing dates: 6 November 2024 Date of orders: 6 November 2024 Decision date: 06 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs [69] and [72]
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to set aside default judgment – Workers’ Compensation Nominal Insurer claim against defendant as ‘culpable director’ of uninsured company – whether triable issue
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss, 58(2), 63(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr, 36.15(1), 36.16(2)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 145, 145A
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, s 105
Cases Cited: Coombs v Workcover Authority of NSW [2014] NSWSC 1701
Jones v Riley [2022] NSWDC 323
Texts Cited: Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Mr Ali Arab (Defendant/Applicant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr D Price (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Mr Ali Arab (Defendant/Applicant)
Turks Legal (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Ehsani Legal Pty Ltd (Defendant/Applicant)
File Number(s): 2024/00134304 Publication restriction: Nil
EX Tempore reasons for JUDGMENT
Introduction
-
On 27 June 2024, default judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff (the 'Nominal Insurer') against the defendant (‘Mr Arab’) for the sum of $255,731, inclusive of costs. By a notice of motion filed on 18 July 2024, Mr Arab applies to set aside that judgment, apparently pursuant to both rr 36.15(1) and 36.16(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’).
-
The Nominal Insurer had commenced the proceeding, by a statement of claim, on 11 April 2024. By its pleading, the Nominal Insurer relevantly averred that: Mr Arab was the director of Pila Pila Pty Ltd (the company) which, materially, employed a worker (Ms Sakhrawi); that the worker sustained a work injury in April 2021; that the company was uninsured and therefore contravened s 155(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ('WC Act'). The Nominal Insurer contended that by force of statute, the worker was entitled to sue it and the Nominal Insurer, in turn paid the worker compensation and medical expenses and thereafter it was entitled to sue the company for reimbursement of the amount that it paid the worker. This represented a statutory debt. But, on 3 July 2023, the company was placed into liquidation. That eventuality was also covered by the statutory scheme in the sense that the Nominal Insurer was entitled to recover an amount representing the sum that the Nominal Insurer considered irrecoverable from the company from a 'culpable director'. That expression presented a low bar by the statutory scheme: it was sufficient that the person was a director of the company at any time during the contravention to which the entitlement to iCare related.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Arab 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 523
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether there was a triable issue in the defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment. The key issue was whether the insurer had made out a prima facie case against the defendant as a culpable director. The court considered the evidence presented by the insurer, including the statutory presumptions under the applicable workers’ compensation legislation, and the defendant’s submissions in his application.
The court found that there was a triable issue regarding the defendant’s culpability as a director. The statutory presumptions did not automatically establish his culpability, and there were factual disputes that needed to be resolved at a hearing. The court held that the defendant had demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and therefore, the application to set aside the default judgment should be granted. The court ordered that the default judgment be set aside and that the matter proceed to a hearing.
The court further ordered that the defendant’s application for costs be assessed on the standard basis, and that the parties bear their own costs of the application to set aside the default judgment. The court also directed that the matter be listed for a directions hearing to determine the timetable for the hearing of the merits of the claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs [69] and [72]
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.