Matthew Heuston v Central Coast Leagues Club [2011] NSWDC 271

Matthew Heuston v Central Coast Leagues Club [2011] NSWDC 271

Sections 315-318 and the relevant Rules should be read together. A plain reading of s 315(1) requires the claimant to provide particulars of the claim and particulars of the evidence, not the evidence itself in the form of witness statements. Because the provisions do not clearly displace the usual course of oral...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Workers Injury Damages Claim / Preliminary Issue on Defendant's Application to Prohibit the Plaintiff From Giving Oral Evidence Not Disclosed in the Pre Filing Statement
Outcome
Defendant's application rejected
Legal Topics
['work Injury Damages' 'pre Filing Statement' 'admission of Oral Evidence' 'particulars of Evidence' 'purposive Statutory Interpretation']
['workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['work Injury Damages' 'pre Filing Statement' 'admission of Oral Evidence' 'particulars of Evidence' 'purposive Statutory Interpretation']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Workers Injury Damages Claim / Preliminary Issue on Defendant's Application to Prohibit the Plaintiff From Giving Oral Evidence Not Disclosed in the Pre Filing Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 318(1)(d) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act, 1998 prohibited the plaintiff from giving oral evidence because no written statement from the plaintiff was disclosed in the pre-filing statement.' "Whether ss 315-318 require service of the claimant's evidence itself, or only particulars of the claim and particulars of the evidence." 'Whether any objection was in substance an assertion of a defective pre-filing statement that had to be raised under s 317.']

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 315-318 and the relevant Rules should be read together. A plain reading of s 315(1) requires the claimant to provide particulars of the claim and particulars of the evidence, not the evidence itself in the form of witness statements. Because the provisions do not clearly displace the usual course of oral evidence, the absence of a written statement from the plaintiff in the pre-filing statement did not prohibit him from giving oral evidence, although particular items of evidence could be objected to if not sufficiently particularised.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application rejected

Orders

  • ["Defendant's application rejected"]