Ron Lai Plastic Pty Limited v Cui Ngo [2010] NSWCA 128

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: Ron Lai Plastic Pty Limited v Cui Ngo [2010] NSWCA 128 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 44; Tobias JA at 50

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 28 May 2010

DECISION: The appeal is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS: INTERPRETATION – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 – meaning of "motor accident" – plastic extrusion machine falling in the course of being moved by a forklift – whether a "motor accident" in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298

PARTIES: Ron Lai Plastic Pty Limited (Appellant) Cui Ngo (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2009/298456

COUNSEL: K Andrews (Appellant) S Norton SC; M Daley (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Leitch Hasson Dent (Appellant) Brydens (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 4546/2007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Christie ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 May 2009

- 14 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 2009/298456

BEAZLEY JA HODGSON JA TOBIAS JA

Ex tempore 28 May 2010 Ron Lai Plastic Co Pty Limited v Cui Ngo Judgment 1 BEAZLEY JA: This is an appeal from a decision of Christie ADCJ of 20 May 2009, in which his Honour found a verdict for the respondent, who was injured in an accident on 9 February 2006, when a dye, being a part of a plastic extrusion machine (the machine), fell on him (the accident). The trial judge found that the dye fell in the course of the machine being moved by a forklift in circumstances where the incident was properly characterised as a "motor accident" within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. 2 The accident occurred during the course of the respondent's employment with the appellant, who contended that the incident was not a "motor accident" within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, but that the respondent's cause of action was governed by the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. That is the sole issue raised on the appeal. If the appeal is successful, then the appellant seeks a verdict in its favour, as the respondent has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for the bringing of a claim under the Workers Compensation legislation.