Royal v Alcoa of Australia Ltd

[2004] WASCA 269

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Amendment of defence
4. › Leave to amend
5. › Whether proposed amendment pleads arguable defence
6. › Whether material facts sufficiently pleaded
7. › Whether injustice in allowing amendment
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 8(1)
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Deemed employer
3. › Principal contractor and sub-contractor
4. › Connection between injury and execution of contractual works
5. › Whether worker injured in execution of work under contract
6. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 175(1), (3), (7), s 5, s 93B(1), Pt IV Div 2
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Amendment of defence
3. › Discretionary considerations
4. › Delay in seeking amendment
5. › Prejudice to plaintiff
6. › Whether complete defence justifies refusal of leave
7. › Whether costs cure prejudice

Quick Take

A defence under s 175 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) must plead with sufficient clarity the contractual works, the connection between the worker's injury and the execution of those works, and which limb of the definition of 'disability' in s 5 is relied upon. A worker's mere presence on premises for the purpose of performing contractual works is not of itself sufficient to establish the necessary connection where the injury arose from non-contractual works. The question of the precise nature and extent of the required connection between injury and contractual work remains open.