Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Hartland vs. Firm Construction Pty. Ltd. - (10 May 2023)

Unless the court otherwise directs, an originating process must be supported by an affidavit stating the facts in support of the process

Civil

Matthew Hartland (Plaintiff) was employed as a carpenter/concreter by Togail Na Heireann Pty Ltd. On 21 May, 2020, he attended a site controlled and occupied by Firm Construction Pty Ltd (Defendant). During a concrete pour, Mr. Hartland sustained concrete burns to his feet and legs. The Defendant has subsequently been placed under external administration. Mr. Hartland therefore needs leave to commence proceedings against the Defendant for damages for personal injuries in the District Court.

The Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules, 2004 (Corporations Rules) stipulate that, unless the court otherwise directs, an originating process must be supported by an affidavit stating the facts in support of the process. The supporting affidavit must annex a record of a search of ASIC records in relation to the defendant, carried out no earlier than seven days before the originating process is filed.

There was no direct evidence of the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's injury at the commencement of proceedings save as to the Plaintiff's solicitors deposing that, the Plaintiff had sustained burns to his legs and feet. The Plaintiff's solicitors subsequently put forth further evidence as to the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's injury. Having regard to the affidavit material, present Court is satisfied that, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried.

Against the nature and seriousness of the Plaintiff's claim, present Court have weighed up the status of the Defendant, a company under external administration. There is no evidence of any prospect of surplus assets in the Defendant, a factor which would be a good reason to refuse leave. However, in present case, there is evidence of a relevant insurance policy. There is also evidence that the defendant's insurer has been put on notice of the Plaintiff's proposed claim by way of letter dated 13 March, 2023. There is a serious question to be tried. In the absence of any evidence about the assets held by the liquidator and potential claims by creditors, the evidence in relation to the availability of insurance favours leave being granted.

Tags : DAMAGES   PERSONAL INJURIES   EVIDENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved