Young v Woodcock - [2020] NSWSC 415

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Woodcock [2020] NSWSC 415
Hearing dates: 17 April 2020
Date of orders: 17 April 2020
Decision date: 17 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to section 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW, the proceedings numbered 2018/0038224, which have been commenced by the plaintiff in the District Court of New South Wales, are to be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
(2) I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of this application.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to transfer proceedings from District Court to the Supreme Court – Whether Court could be satisfied that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court – Relevance of procedural history – Late application for transfer based largely on medical evidence which had been in the possession of the plaintiff’s solicitor for more than a year – No explanation for the delay – Where plaintiff’s unchallenged medical evidence supported an award of substantial damages in favour of the plaintiff in the event that he was successful – Order for transfer made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Lazare v City of Sydney Council & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1546
Younes v QIC Limited trading as Westpoint Blacktown [2012] NSWSC 451
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Gregory Colin Young – Plaintiff
Justin Conway Woodcock - Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
P Beale and J Doyon – Plaintiff
J Guindi – Defendant
Solicitors:
CMC Lawyers – Plaintiff
McCabe Curwood Lawyers – Defendant

File Number(s): 2020/105322
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

By a summons dated 6 April 2020, the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to section 140 of the Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW) (the Act) that proceedings numbered 2018/00382224, which have been commenced in the District Court of New South Wales, be transferred to this Court. In support of that summons the plaintiff has read two affidavits, the first of Brendan Joseph Moran, solicitor, of 6 April 2020, and the second of Eva Antonia Magyar, solicitor, of 16 April 2020. Both of those affidavits were read without objection.
The defendant took a neutral position on the application, and neither consented to, nor opposed, the relief sought.

THE FACTS

The factual background to the application may be shortly stated.
The defendant was the owner and occupier of premises at 50A High Street, Millers Point (the premises), and was accordingly responsible for the care, control and management of renovation works which were being carried out in 2017. On 25 October 2017, the plaintiff attended the premises in the capacity of a self-employed plumber to work at the premises and was required to climb up to the first level. He alleges that in the course of descending from the first level to the ground level a tread on which he stepped suddenly broke, causing him to fall to the ground, as a…

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 Young v Woodcock 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: [2020] NSWSC 415
Decision Date: 17 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Young v Woodcock, the plaintiff sought to transfer proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court. The dispute involved an application to transfer proceedings due to concerns about the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. The plaintiff argued that the damages awarded could exceed the jurisdictional threshold of the District Court. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether it could be satisfied that the amount of damages awarded would likely exceed the District Court's jurisdictional limit, taking into account the procedural history of the case and the late submission of the application.

The legal issues before the court included whether the procedural history, particularly the late application for transfer based largely on medical evidence that had been in the possession of the plaintiff's solicitor for more than a year, warranted an order for transfer. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of the unchallenged medical evidence that supported an award of substantial damages in favour of the plaintiff if successful. The court also needed to address the absence of any explanation from the plaintiff regarding the delay in submitting the application.

The Supreme Court found that the procedural history and the lack of explanation for the delay in submitting the application were significant factors. However, the unchallenged medical evidence that supported an award of substantial damages was compelling. Given that the amount of damages awarded was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, the court was satisfied that the application should be granted. Consequently, the court made an order for the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court.

Orders