Amaca Pty. Ltd. v State Rail Authority of NSW

Case [2005] NSWCA 343
CITATION:

Amaca Pty. Ltd. v. State Rail Authority of NSW [2005] NSWCA 343
HEARING DATE(S):

29 September 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


29 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Hodgson JA at 1; Ipp JA at 5
DECISION:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:

ESTOPPEL - Previous decision as to knowledge of State Rail Authority at a particular time - Whether estoppel as to knowledge at a later time - Admissibility of evidence of events at earlier time relevant to question of knowledge
LEGISLATION CITED:

Dust Diseases Act 1989 s.25B
CASES CITED:

O'Donel v. The Commissioner of Road Transport and Tramways (NSW) 59 CLR 744
PARTIES:

Amaca Pty. Ltd. - claimant
State Rail Authority of NSW - opponent
FILE NUMBER(S):

CA 40046/05
COUNSEL:

Mr. G.M. Watson SC for claimant
Mr. M. Holmes QC for opponent
SOLICITORS:

Phillips Fox, Sydney for claimant
Moroney Betts, Sydney for opponent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

DDT 61 of 1998/2

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

Judge Walker



                          CA 40046/05

                          HODGSON JA
                          IPP JA

                          Thursday 29 September 2005
AMACA PTY. LTD. V. STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW
Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: The application for leave to appeal seeks leave to appeal against an order dismissing the claimant’s application to “re-litigate the issue of knowledge of the State Rail Authority decided in Raynor’s case”.

2 In the course of the reasons given by the primary Judge for dismissing that application, the primary Judge rejected evidence going to events in 1950 relevant to the State Rail Authority’s knowledge, and also stated “The ultimate issue in this case is identical to that in Raynor’s case namely the apportionment of liability between some three parties”. If that statement is taken literally, it is plainly wrong, because the issue in Raynor’s case was an apportionment of liability dependent on events occurring up to 1950, whereas the issue in this case is an apportionment of liability dependent on events after 1950. Furthermore, in relation to the issue in this case, the material concerning events in 1950 is plainly relevant, and cannot be excluded because of any considerations arising from issue estoppel or from s.25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989. In my opinion that is shown clearly by the case of O’Donel v. The Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (NSW) 59 CLR 744.

3 Mr Holmes for the opponent accepts that the issue in this case is different from that in Raynor’s case in the way I have identified, and accepts that the evidence concerning events in 1950 is relevant and admissible on the issue in this case. The case before the tribunal is almost finished, and in the circumstances of Mr Holmes’ concession it seems to me that the appropriate course is to refuse leave to appeal in the expectation that the 1950 material will be admitted and the parties will be allowed to argue as to its effect in relation to knowledge of the State Rail Authority at the relevant time.

4 The parties are not in agreement as to whether the matter was put below in the way it has been put in this judgment. It seems clear that investigation of exactly how the matter was put below and determined would involve far more costs than could be justified, so the order that I propose, for the reasons I have given, is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and that there be no order as to costs.

5 IPP JA: I agree.

**********
Details
AGLC
Amaca Pty. Ltd. v State Rail Authority of NSW [2005] NSWCA 343
Case
[2005] NSWCA 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amaca Pty. Ltd. sought leave to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the admissibility of evidence in a dispute with the State Rail Authority of NSW. The core of the dispute involved whether the State Rail Authority had knowledge of certain matters at a particular time, which was relevant to the underlying proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a previous finding or admission regarding the State Rail Authority's knowledge at an earlier point in time could give rise to an estoppel preventing them from denying knowledge at a later, distinct time. Relatedly, the court had to consider the admissibility of evidence concerning events that occurred at that earlier time, and whether such evidence was relevant to the question of the Authority's knowledge at the later time.

Hodgson and Ipp JJA dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the principles of estoppel, as applied to the State Rail Authority's knowledge, did not extend to establishing knowledge at a later time based on a finding of knowledge at an earlier time, particularly when the later time involved different circumstances. The court also considered the relevance of evidence of earlier events to the question of knowledge at a later time, implying that such evidence might be admissible if it shed light on the later state of knowledge, but ultimately finding no error in the decision below that would warrant granting leave to appeal. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.