Worldon v Schofield and Ors - [2014] NSWDC 11

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Worldon v Schofield & Ors [2014] NSWDC 11
Hearing dates: 6, 7 and 17 March 2014
Decision date: 19 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:
1.On the first question posed for separate determination, that at the time of the plaintiff's injury the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment was the ACT;
2.On the second question posed for separate determination, verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Schofield and Bradley Smith, trading as Schofield Fencing;
3.On the third question posed for separate determination, the defendants have failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff;
4.The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs incurred in connection with the determination of the separate questions, such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered;
5.During the current sittings of the Court in Wollongong the parties are to bring short minutes for the appropriate procedural directions now required in order to advance the next phase of the proceedings to finality;
6.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - plaintiff resident in NSW injured in workplace injury in ACT - determination of separate questions concerning alleged negligence of employer and alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff; CONFLICT OF LAWS - choice of law determined by question of whether territory of connection of plaintiff's employment was NSW or ACT
Legislation Cited: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 43, s 45
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B, s 5D
Workers' Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), Pt 4.2A, s 36A, s 36B
Workers' Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Avon Products Pty Limited v Falls [2010] ACTCA 21
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301
Ellis v Weldcraft Engineering ACT Pty Ltd and Construction Control Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] ACTSC 164
Hanns v Greyhound Pioneer Australia Ltd [2006] ACTSC 5
Martin v RJ Hibbens Pty Ltd [2010] NSWWCCPD 83
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254, at [13] per Gleeson CJ
Ruskic v Greenwich Contractors Pty Limited [2013] ACTSC 263
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442
Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2013] NSWSC 26
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Worldon (Plaintiff)
Andrew James Schofield & Bradley James Smith t/as Schofield Fencing (First defendants)
Workers Compensation Default Insurance Fund Manager…

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 Worldon v Schofield and Ors 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: [2014] NSWDC 11
Decision Date: 19 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Worldon v Schofield and Ors, the plaintiff, residing in New South Wales, was injured in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) during a workplace accident. The plaintiff sought damages from the defendants, who were the employer and the employer's employee, for negligence. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issues before the court were whether the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment was New South Wales or the ACT, whether the employer was negligent, and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The court first addressed the question of the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment. The court determined that the territory of connection was the ACT, as the employment was carried out there and the plaintiff's place of work was located in the ACT. The court then turned to the issue of the employer's negligence, finding that the employer had failed to provide adequate safety equipment and training, which led to the plaintiff's injury. The court also found that the defendants had not established any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the applicable laws of tort and conflict of laws. The court found that the employer's failure to provide adequate safety equipment and training constituted negligence, and that the plaintiff's contributory negligence, if any, was not established. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs incurred in connection with the determination of the separate questions, and directed the parties to bring short minutes for the appropriate procedural directions to advance the next phase of the proceedings to finality. The court also granted liberty to apply for further orders if required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.On the first question posed for separate determination, that at the time of the plaintiff's injury the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment was the ACT;

2.On the second question posed for separate determination, verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Schofield and Bradley Smith, trading as Schofield Fencing;

3.On the third question posed for separate determination, the defendants have failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff;

4.The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs incurred in connection with the determination of the separate questions, such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered;

5.During the current sittings of the Court in Wollongong the parties are to bring short minutes for the appropriate procedural directions now required in order to advance the next phase of the proceedings to finality;

6.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Worldon v Schofield & Ors [2014] NSWDC 11
Hearing dates:	6, 7 and 17 March 2014
Decision date:	19 March 2014
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Levy SC DCJ
Decision:	1.On the first question posed for separate determination, that at the time of the plaintiff's injury the territory of connection of the plaintiff's employment was the ACT; 2.On the second question posed for separate determination, verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the negligence of Andrew Schofield and Bradley Smith, trading as Schofield Fencing; 3.On the third question posed for separate determination, the defendants have failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; 4.The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs incurred in connection with the determination of the separate questions, such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered; 5.During the current sittings of the Court in Wollongong the parties are to bring short minutes for the appropriate procedural directions now required in order to advance the next phase of the proceedings to finality; 6.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	TORTS - plaintiff resident in NSW injured in workplace injury in ACT - determination of separate questions concerning alleged negligence of employer and alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff; CONFLICT OF LAWS - choice of law determined by question of whether territory of connection of plaintiff's employment was NSW or ACT
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 43, s 45 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B, s 5D Workers' Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), Pt 4.2A, s 36A, s 36B Workers' Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Avon Products Pty Limited v Falls [2010] ACTCA 21 Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301 Ellis v Weldcraft Engineering ACT Pty Ltd and Construction Control Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] ACTSC 164 Hanns v Greyhound Pioneer Australia Ltd [2006] ACTSC 5 Martin v RJ Hibbens Pty Ltd [2010] NSWWCCPD 83 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254, at [13] per Gleeson CJ Ruskic v Greenwich Contractors Pty Limited [2013] ACTSC 263 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442 Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2013] NSWSC 26 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Craig Worldon (Plaintiff) Andrew James Schofield & Bradley James Smith t/as Schofield Fencing (First defendants) Workers Compensation Default Insurance Fund Manager…