John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson, David [1998] FCA 815

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson, David [1998] FCA 815

The Federal Court was bound by McKain and Stevens v Head, and the workers compensation provisions relied on by the applicant were not materially distinguishable from the provisions considered in Stevens v Head. The asserted distinction between directory and mandatory wording was without substance in light of the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Tort Choice of Law and Workers Compensation Personal Injury Matter / On Appeal From a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['choice of Law in Tort' 'intranational Torts' 'substantive and Procedural Law' 'damages for Personal Injury' 'workplace Injury in New South Wales']
['jurisdiction' 'private International Law' 'tort' 'workers Compensation'] ['choice of Law in Tort' 'intranational Torts' 'substantive and Procedural Law' 'damages for Personal Injury' 'workplace Injury in New South Wales']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in a Tort Choice of Law and Workers Compensation Personal Injury Matter / On Appeal From a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the approach taken by the majority of the High Court in relation to intranational torts in McKain v R W Miller (SA) Pty Ltd and Stevens v Head was incorrect and should not be followed.' 'Whether ss 151G and 151H of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) were distinguishable from the statutory provisions considered in Stevens v Head and should be characterised as substantive rather than procedural.' 'If the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) provisions were not distinguishable, whether the majority approach in Stevens v Head in treating the relevant limits on damages for personal injury as procedural was incorrect.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court was bound by McKain and Stevens v Head, and the workers compensation provisions relied on by the applicant were not materially distinguishable from the provisions considered in Stevens v Head. The asserted distinction between directory and mandatory wording was without substance in light of the statutory purpose and effect. Sections 151G and 151H of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) were procedural in operation, so there was no appellable error in the decisions below and the appeal had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed."]