Mclaughlin v Employers Mutual NSW Limited [2021] NSWSC 198

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mclaughlin v Employers Mutual NSW Limited [2021] NSWSC 198 Hearing dates: 02 March 2021 Date of orders: 02 March 2021 Decision date: 02 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: 1. Judgment for the defendant. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs. Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – particular relationships – duty owed by workers compensation insurer to injured worker – no duty owed - workers compensation - proper forum Legislation Cited: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) Cases Cited: Mclaughlin v Burrows & Ors t/as Kells The Lawyers [2020] NSWSC 1802 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Scot George Mclaughlin (Plaintiff) Employers Mutual NSW Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Stockley (Defendant)

Solicitors: Plaintiff (Self-represented) Lee Legal Group (Defendant) File Number(s): 2020/79606 Publication restriction: None

REVISED EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. By way of an amended statement of claim filed on 20 August 2020, the plaintiff, Scot George McLaughlin, brings proceedings against the defendant, Employers Mutual NSW Limited, seeking compensation in respect of injuries and losses he has sustained since approximately 1999. Mr McLaughlin appears for himself in the proceedings. Paul Stockley of counsel appears for the defendant. 2. The matter was listed before me for two days commencing 2 March 2021. Further, there was a motion filed by the defendant listed for hearing at the same time, pursuant to which the defendant sought to have the proceedings dismissed on the basis that there was no cause of action disclosed in the statement of claim or on a pleadings point. 3. Although I suggested that the hearing should commence with consideration of that motion, it became apparent that the issues involved on the hearing and on the motion were somewhat similar and thus the evidence and submissions on the motion and the hearing were considered at the same time. In the end, after some discussion with Mr Stockley, the defendant withdrew its motion. As such, the matter proceeded to a full hearing and a final determination of all of the issues raised on the pleadings. 4. The statement of claim filed on 20 August 2020 was the third version of the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff. The parties prepared a joint court book and the whole of the joint court book was admitted into evidence. 5. Although Mr Stockley raised issues as to the admissibility and relevance of some of the documents, I indicated I would give such documents such weight as I thought fit in all the circumstances. In addition to the documents contained in the court book, the plaintiff gave oral evidence, particularly relating to the difficulties that he has experienced over the past 20 years in relation to his health, the very significant issues that have confronted him, and his considerable determination in overcoming the problems that he has had to deal with. 6. His evidence contained a number of references to what other people had said to him, including what doctors might have said to him about his medical conditions. Again, I will treat such statements appropriately, having regard the weight that I might give such hearsay statements.