Hall v Ecoline Pty Ltd T/As Treetop Adventure Park [2018] NSWSC 1732

Hall v Ecoline Pty Ltd T/As Treetop Adventure Park [2018] NSWSC 1732

The statement of claim was materially different from the proposed statement of claim in the pre-filing statement, specifically in describing the mechanism of injury—a fall rather than a twist/lift injury—contravening s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). The discretion to grant leave under s 318(2) was not enlivened as the material concerned was reasonably available to the plaintiff at the time the pre-filing statement was served.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Work Injury Damages Claim / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Dismissal of Proceedings Against Second Defendant
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; proceedings against second defendant dismissed; costs order against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['work Injury Damages' 'limitation Periods' 'pleading Requirements' 'pre Filing Statement' 'material Difference in Pleadings']
["workers' Compensation" 'civil Procedure'] ['work Injury Damages' 'limitation Periods' 'pleading Requirements' 'pre Filing Statement' 'material Difference in Pleadings']

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

Work Injury Damages Claim / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Dismissal of Proceedings Against Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement of claim was materially different from the proposed statement of claim in the pre-filing statement under s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)' 'Whether leave should be granted to file a materially different statement of claim under s 318(2)' 'Whether the plaintiff could commence proceedings out of time under s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was materially different from the proposed statement of claim in the pre-filing statement, specifically in describing the mechanism of injury—a fall rather than a twist/lift injury—contravening s 318 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). The discretion to grant leave under s 318(2) was not enlivened as the material concerned was reasonably available to the plaintiff at the time the pre-filing statement was served.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; proceedings against second defendant dismissed; costs order against plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiff's further amended notice of motion filed 5 November 2018." 'Dismiss the proceedings against the second defendant pursuant to UCPR r 13.4.' "The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings."]