| Redbro Investments
Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - negligence - workplace injury - equal
apportionment of liability between employer and third party - appeal dismissed |
| Pi v State of New
South Wales (NSWSC) - pleadings - malicious prosecution - false imprisonment -
wrongful arrest - statement of claim struck out - defamation action dismissed |
| Mackay Sugar Ltd v
Quadrio (QCA) - contract - concluded and binding supply contract under Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld) - appeal
allowed |
| AME Hospitals Pty Ltd v Dixon (WASCA) - contract - negligence - extension of time to bring action
against doctor and company - appeals dismissed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Redbro
Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Basten & Leeming JJA; Simpson J
Negligence - workplace injury - truck driver
employed by appellant - truck driver director of employer - employer owned prime
mover driven by worker - respondent contracted with employer to haul trailers -
worker claimed that, while loading trailer in Perth he fell and was injured -
respondent was held liable to worker on basis worker’s contributory negligence
was one third - respondent sued employer for statutory contribution - primary
judge apportioned liability equally between respondent and employer - employer
submitted injury had not occurred in way respondent and worker contended - employer
challenged primary judge’s acceptance of worker as witness of truth - employer
also contended corporate structure which permitted respondent to seek
contribution after compromising worker’s personal claim against it should result
in nil or minimal contribution - primary judge rejected employer’s submissions
- submissions in substance repeated on appeal - commercial reality - s151Z Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) - held:
no error shown in primary judge’s reasoning - employer’s appeal dismissed.
Redbro
|
Pi v
State of New South Wales
[2015] NSWSC 324
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Harrison J
Pleadings - malicious prosecution - wrongful
arrest - false imprisonment - defamation - NSW sought to strike out statement
of claim - whether current statement of claim should be struck out in whole or
in part - whether plaintiff should be entitled to replead his case - whether claim
in defamation should be dismissed as an abuse of process - held: no version of
plaintiff’s statement of claim ever put in proper form - latest version was
patently embarrassing and failed to formulate or plead a cause of action known
to the law - NSW entitled to require plaintiff to formulate his various claims
in proper manner - claims in defamation not maintainable - absolute privilege
was complete answer to defamation claims - claims in defamation dismissed - statement
of claim struck out with leave to file and serve amended statement of claim.
Pi
|
Mackay
Sugar Ltd v Quadrio
[2015] QCA 41
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Carmody CJ; Fraser & Phillipides JJA
Contracts - statutory interpretation -
trial judge declared respondent had not committed to concluded and binding
contract with appellants in terms of “Tableland Collective Cane Supply and
Processing Agreement” - declaration based on conclusion respondent had not
complied with Sugar Industry Act 1999
(Qld) - whether trial judge erred in holding respondent had not signed a supply contract as required by s31(5) -
whether trial judge erred in holding a prerequisite
for a binding contract that parties intended to be legally bound was satisfied
- held: respondent manifested assent to entering contract by signing execution page
- respondent signed written supply contract in accordance with s31 - appeal
allowed.
Mackay
|
AME
Hospitals Pty Ltd -v- Dixon
[2015] WASCA 63
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
McLure P; Buss & Newnes JJA
Negligence - contract - limitations -
Master granted respondent extension of time under s36 Limitation Act 2005 (WA) to commence action against doctor and company
for breach of contract or negligence in connection with respondent’s birth - proper construction of s39 and its application
to facts and circumstances - injury -
physical cause - aware - ought reasonably to
have become aware - attributable to -
held: at time limitation period expired, respondent’s father not aware of physical cause of respondent’s encephalopathy
or cerebral palsy and not aware either
injury attributable to conduct of a person - Court’s power to extend time enlivened
- Master granted extension of time by order within 3 year period in s39(4) -
Master had power to make order within proper exercise of discretion - appeals dismissed.
AME
|
