Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1452

Sohailee v City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1452

The challenged amended particulars were not materially different from the proposed statement of claim served with the pre-filing statement. They expanded or more properly expressed the same allegations about wall panels being leaned against a wall, the plaintiff working in that area, and failures of supervision and instruction to ensure panels were safely secured. Paragraphs 21 and 22 did not create a materially different claim merely because their language resembled s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); they were a proper pleading of negligence matters. Accordingly, s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) was not offended and there was no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Motion in Work Injury Damages Proceedings Concerning Negligence Pleadings / Second Defendant's Motion to Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28
Outcome
The motion was dismissed and the second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'pre Filing Statements' 'work Injury Damages' 'materially Different Statement of Claim' 'particulars of Negligence']
['civil Procedure' 'workers Compensation' 'negligence'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'pre Filing Statements' 'work Injury Damages' 'materially Different Statement of Claim' 'particulars of Negligence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Motion in Work Injury Damages Proceedings Concerning Negligence Pleadings / Second Defendant's Motion to Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim was materially different from the proposed statement of claim forming part of the pre-filing statement for the purposes of s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW).' 'Whether particulars 23(v), 23(vi) and 23(viii) of the amended statement of claim should be struck out under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the pleading of matters resembling s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) made the amended statement of claim materially different.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged amended particulars were not materially different from the proposed statement of claim served with the pre-filing statement. They expanded or more properly expressed the same allegations about wall panels being leaned against a wall, the plaintiff working in that area, and failures of supervision and instruction to ensure panels were safely secured. Paragraphs 21 and 22 did not create a materially different claim merely because their language resembled s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); they were a proper pleading of negligence matters. Accordingly, s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) was not offended and there was no...

Court Disposition

The motion was dismissed and the second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The motion is dismissed.' "The second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion."]