NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73 Hearing dates: 9 March 2015 Decision date: 27 March 2015 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Leeming JA at [2]; Simpson J at [94] Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs. Catchwords: APPEAL - challenge to findings of fact - findings based on testimonial evidence and demeanour of witnesses - whether trial judge grappled with conflicting documentary evidence - whether material errors in description of evidence - whether necessary to determine why employee had given different histories
CHOICE OF LAW - statutory contribution between tortfeasors - workplace accident in Perth - proceedings between employee and third party compromised in District Court of New South Wales - third party seeks statutory contribution from employer - absence of federal jurisdiction - characterisation of apportionment legislation - applicable choice of law rule for statutory claim for contribution
TORTS - statutory contribution - workplace accident - challenge to equal apportionment of liability between third party and employer - relevance of employer being a company whose sole director and shareholder was the employee - relevance of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z - relevance of compromised proceedings resulting in a judgment for the employee with the parties bearing their own costs Legislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140 Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 (Cth), s 8 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 79, 80 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA), s 7 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 10 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9AA, 151Z Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 20 Cases Cited: Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield [2005] HCA 38; 223 CLR 251 Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; 217 CLR 424 Baldry v Jackson [1977] 1 NSWLR 494 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336 Bunnings Group Ltd v Borg [2014] NSWCA 240 Chilton v Corporation of London (1878) 7 Ch D 735 Clodumar v Nauru Lands Committee [2012] HCA 22; 245 CLR 561 Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd v Couper [2013] NSWCA 444 Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357 CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Formosa [2009] NSWCA 363; 261 ALR 441 Eberstaller v Poulos [2014] NSWCA 211; 313 ALR 165 FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16 Fluor Australia Pty Ltd v ASC Engineering Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 262; 19 VR 458 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186 Hickson v Goodman Fielder Ltd [2009] HCA 11; 237 CLR 130 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; 203 CLR 503 Keith v Gal [2013] NSWCA 339 Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12 Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389 MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council [2012] NSWCA 417 Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd [1987] HCA 68; 163 CLR 611 Nominal Defendant v Bagot's Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1971] SASR 346 Nominal Defendant v Green [2013] NSWCA 219 Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1964] HCA 84; 111 CLR 443 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Shedlezki v Bronte Bakery Pty Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 378 Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission [2006] HCA 8; 226 CLR 362 Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259 Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation v Dingle [1994] SASC 4816 Texts Cited: A Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts, Oxford University Press, 2014 M Davies, A Bell and P Brereton, Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia, LexisNexis, 9th ed, 2014 J Wade, "Joint Tortfeasors and the Conflict of Laws" 6 Vand L Rev 464 (1953) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Redbro Investments Pty Ltd (Appellant) Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd (Formerly TNT Logistics (Aust) Pty Ltd) (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Harben SC with A Combe (Appellant) G J Parker SC (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate