Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd (No 4)

[2014] FCA 623

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 623

Citation:	Zaghloul v Woodside Energy Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 623
Parties:	DR HASSAN ZAGHLOUL v WOODSIDE ENERGY LIMITED (ACN 005 482 986)
File number:	ACD 62 of 2012
Judge:	GILMOUR J
Date of judgment:	20 May 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to have a question heard and determined as a separate question pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where trial of preliminary issue would not involve adducing contentious evidence – potential to avoid lengthy trial – confined nature of question lends itself to being tried as a preliminary issue
Legislation:	Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 93K Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.01
Date of hearing:	20 May 2014
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Blackburn
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ashurst Australia

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 62 of 2012

BETWEEN:	DR HASSAN ZAGHLOUL Applicant
AND:	WOODSIDE ENERGY LIMITED (ACN 005 482 986) Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Respondent’s interlocutory application filed on 17 April 2013

1.The respondent have leave to discontinue its interlocutory application for summary judgment filed on 17 April 2013.

Applicant’s application filed on 25 March 2014

2.The applicant’s application for summary judgment filed on 25 March 2014 be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Court on or after 1 July 2014.

3.By 3 June 2014, the applicant file and serve any further written submissions or affidavit materials in support of its application for summary judgment.

4.By 17 June 2014, the respondent file and serve any written submissions or affidavit materials in response to the applicant’s application for summary judgment.

Respondent’s amended interlocutory application filed on 12 May 2014

5.Pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the question of whether the Court can award damages in tort or contract in respect of mental or physical injury suffered by the applicant be heard and determined as a separate question.

6.The respondent’s amended interlocutory application filed on 12 May 2014, including the separate question, be listed for hearing at the same time as the applicant’s application for summary judgment.

7.By 3 June 2014, the respondent file and serve any further written submissions or affidavit materials in support of its amended interlocutory application including the separate question.

8.By 17 June 2014, the applicant file and serve any written submissions or affidavit materials in response to the applicant’s amended interlocutory application including the separate question.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 62 of 2012

BETWEEN:	DR HASSAN ZAGHLOUL Applicant
AND:	WOODSIDE ENERGY LIMITED (ACN 005 482 986) Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE:	20 MAY 2014
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I made orders in this matter on 20 May 2014, at which time I delivered ex tempore reasons.  These are those reasons, edited, but not so as to alter the substance of the reasons.

2. There is before the Court an interlocutory application by the applicant, Dr Hassan Zaghloul, dated 24 March 2014, in which he seeks summary judgment against the respondent for a sum in excess of $42 million. 

3. Dr Zaghloul has filed a reply to the respondent’s amended application, to which I now turn. In relation to the respondent’s amended interlocutory application, dated 9 May 2014, various orders are sought in the way of summary judgment as against the applicant. It includes, in order 3, an order pursuant to r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), that the question of whether the Court can award damages in tort or contract, in respect of mental or physical injury suffered by the applicant, be heard and determined as a separate question. But now, in addition to seeking programming orders in relation to its amended interlocutory application, the respondent seeks today, amongst other orders, that order 3 in its interlocutory application be made: an order as to the trial of a separate question.

4. The application is supported by two affidavits of Jacqueline Elizabeth Young of 9 and 19 May 2014 respectively. The separate question involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction as to the meaning and effect of s 93K of the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The trial of that preliminary question would not involve the adducing of any contentious evidence. It will proceed upon evidence as to which there is no contest, and which is already before the Court. The potential for the trial of the preliminary issue to avoid a very lengthy and expensive trial, not only expensive for the parties but also for the public, raises both private and public interests on this point. The confined nature of the question raised by the preliminary question in my view lends itself to be tried as a preliminary issue, and it will have the potential benefits which I have outlined.

5. I am persuaded that that matter should be tried as a separate question.  Accordingly, I propose to make orders 1-8 contained within the minute of proposed orders provided on behalf of the respondent.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.

Associate:

Dated:       12 June 2014