| Damien v JKAM Investments Pty Ltd (NSWCA) - contract - building work debt - identity of contracting party - assignment of debt - appeal dismissed |
| Thorpe v Jason Weller Plumbing & Contracting (TASSC) - workers compensation - appellant injured felling tree was not a worker under Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (Tas) at time of injury - appellant not entitled to benefits - appeal dismissed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Damien v JKAM Investments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 368
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Gleeson & Simpson JJA; Tobias AJA
Contract - building work debt - assignment - appeal arising from proceedings concerning property owned by appellant - different parties claimed interest in property - disputes determined by Darke J, who ordered separate determination of cross‑claim brought by respondent and second cross‑claim brought by appellant - Rein J entered judgment for respondent following set-off - identity of contracting entity - refusal of tender of email correspondence - post-contractual conduct - held: primary judge correct to reject tender of email correspondence - primary judge made permissible use of post contractual conduct - more than open to primary judge to find appellant contracted with company (ACPL) concerning building work - no error in finding appellant liable to respondent as assignee of debt from ACPL - appeal dismissed.
Damien
|
Thorpe v Jason Weller Plumbing & Contracting [2015] TASSC 57
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Pearce J
Workers compensation - appellant injured when struck by limb of tree he was felling at a property - appellant claimed to be entitled to benefits under Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (Tas) from respondent - Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal found appellant not entitled to benefits because appellant was not a worker under the Act at time of injury - appellant challenged Tribunals’ finding he had not entered into and was not working under contract of service with respondent - held: Tribunal’s determination that appellant was not a worker was reasonably open to it - Tribunal did not err in not expressly dealing with s4B - appeal dismissed.
Thorpe
|
