David William Sneil v Neil Owen Cockram & Workcover Queensland [2007] NSWDC 267

David William Sneil v Neil Owen Cockram & Workcover Queensland [2007] NSWDC 267

The plaintiff and Cockram were employed by a Queensland trucking company to drive freight between Queensland and Victoria through New South Wales, and the plaintiff had passed through New South Wales on multiple occasions in the course of that employment. Interstate transport through New South Wales was an accepted part of TDS's business and involved compliance with New South Wales road transport laws. That gave the employment and accident a sufficient connection with New South Wales, so TDS was required by s 155 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) to take out insurance. Section 10(2)(b) of the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Queensland) therefore applied, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Separate Question Ordered to Be Tried Separately Concerning Whether the Second Cross Defendant Was Required to Indemnify the First Cross Defendant
Outcome
No obligation on the second cross-defendant to indemnify the first cross-defendant; the action brought by the defendant cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant was dismissed; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Under Workers Compensation Accident Insurance' 'application of S 155 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw) to Interstate Employment' 'workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (queensland) S 10(2)(b) Exclusion']
['workers Compensation' 'insurance' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Under Workers Compensation Accident Insurance' 'application of S 155 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw) to Interstate Employment' 'workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (queensland) S 10(2)(b) Exclusion']

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 / Separate Question Ordered to Be Tried Separately Concerning Whether the Second Cross Defendant Was Required to Indemnify the First Cross Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Queensland) required Workcover Queensland to indemnify TDS Agencies Pty Limited in respect of claims brought against TDS by the defendant cross-claimant.' 'Whether TDS Agencies Pty Limited was required by s 155(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) to effect insurance in respect of the relevant risk.' "Whether the plaintiff's employment and accident had a sufficient connection with New South Wales, beyond a fortuitous, fleeting or sufficiently unusual presence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff and Cockram were employed by a Queensland trucking company to drive freight between Queensland and Victoria through New South Wales, and the plaintiff had passed through New South Wales on multiple occasions in the course of that employment. Interstate transport through New South Wales was an accepted part of TDS's business and involved compliance with New South Wales road transport laws. That gave the employment and accident a sufficient connection with New South Wales, so TDS was required by s 155 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) to take out insurance. Section 10(2)(b) of the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Queensland) therefore applied, and...

Court Disposition

No obligation on the second cross-defendant to indemnify the first cross-defendant; the action brought by the defendant cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant was dismissed; costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['The answer to the separate question is no, meaning that there is no obligation on the second cross-defendant to indemnify the first cross-defendant.' 'The action brought by the defendant cross-claimant against the second cross-defendant is dismissed.' 'An order as to costs is made.']