(re Charlton) Rolls Royce v WorkCover [2005] NSWDDT 24

(re Charlton) Rolls Royce v WorkCover [2005] NSWDDT 24

The absence of particulars in the defence leaves the cross-claimant ignorant of the evidence it needs to adduce; therefore, the cross-defendant must provide the particulars sought.

Parties
Cross Claimant: Rolls-Royce Australia Ltd; Cross Defendant: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory
Outcome
particulars ordered; costs to cross-claimant
Legal Topics
Particulars of Defence, Indemnity Under Insurance Policy
Insurance Law Workers Compensation Particulars of Defence Indemnity Under Insurance Policy

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rolls-Royce Australia Ltd

Cross Claimant

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2004 operates to render WCA liable to indemnify Rolls Royce for the damages it paid
  2. 2 Whether sufficient particulars of the defence have been provided

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of particulars in the defence leaves the cross-claimant ignorant of the evidence it needs to adduce; therefore, the cross-defendant must provide the particulars sought.

Court Disposition

particulars ordered; costs to cross-claimant

Orders

  • Order 1 sought by the notice of motion filed on 26 May 2005 is made.
  • Cross-defendant to pay cross-claimant's costs of this motion as agreed or assessed.