//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 264
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-07-24
Muller J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Cristallo v CBR Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd Citation: [2026] ACTSC 264 Hearing Date: 24 July 2026 Decision Date: 24 July 2026 Reasons Date: 28 July 2026 Before: Muller J Decision: (1) The application in proceeding lodged on 3 July 2026 is dismissed. (2) The costs of the application are costs in the cause. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PERSONAL INJURY – Whether leave required to commence proceedings against defendant – whether stay should be ordered to enable plaintiff to comply with pre-court procedures –– no extant non-compliance with the ACT law arose as law of New South Wales applies – no requirement for leave – application dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 50, 79 Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) Cases Cited: Cleary v Rinaudo [2013] 8 ACTLR 71; ACTCA 32 Parties: Zachery George Cristallo (Plaintiff) CBR Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Projex Building Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel J Sainty (Plaintiff) No appearance (First Defendant) X Ji (Second Defendant) Solicitors Blumers Personal Injury Lawyers (Plaintiff) HWLE Lawyers (First Defendant) Meridian Lawyers (Second Defendant) File Number: SC 119 of 2026 MULLER J:
On 24 July 2026, I made orders in this matter dismissing the plaintiff’s application. My reasons for doing so are set out below.
Mr Cristallo says he was injured in a workplace accident on 30 June 2023. The accident happened at Queanbeyan in New South Wales (NSW). Mr Cristallo initially sued his employer and, in his statement of claim, asserts he is an ACT worker for the purposes of the choice of law provisions in the ACT pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (the WC Act). The first defendant employer, CBR Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd, does not suggest otherwise.
Mr Cristallo has now joined Projex Building Group Pty Ltd (Projex) to the proceedings. He says they were the principal contractor on the site where he was injured in NSW. His claim against that entity is expressed in terms of negligence and also breach of statutory duty, although I note the statutory allegations are made under ACT work health and safety legislation.
On the face of the claim, noting he was injured in NSW, it is the law of that state which governs any cause of action accruing to Mr Cristallo as against Projex.
Mr Cristallo now applies for leave pursuant to s 79 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) (the CLW Act) to proceed against Projex on the basis of his admitted non-compliance with the pre-court procedures in the CLW Act. He also seeks a stay of the proceedings to enable him to comply with his pre-court obligations.
The CLW Act
Sub-sections 50(3) and (4) of the CLW Act provides relevantly: 50 Application—ch 5 … (3) Also, this chapter does not apply to a claim for damages for personal injury if a claim for compensation has been made under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 in relation to the injury. (4) Despite subsection (3), part 5.2 (Claims procedures) applies to a claim for damages for personal injury, even though a claim for compensation may have been made under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 in relation to the injury, if— (a) the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019, chapter 5 applies to the claim; or (b) the claim is made against a person who is not an employer or insurer in relation to the injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1951, chapter 6 (Claims) even though it is also made against such a person. …
Sub-section (3) says the pre-court proceedings do not apply to a claim for damages for personal injury if a claim for compensation has been made under the WC Act. It therefore does not apply to the claim against Mr Cristallo’s employer, CBR. It still applies notwithstanding sub-s (3) if a claim is made against someone other than the employer even though the injury is an injury under the WC Act. The pre-court procedures would therefore in usual circumstances apply to the claim made against Projex.
However, in this case, it is the substantive law of NSW that applies to the claim against Projex. As such, the ACT pre-court procedures could not have been invoked against or in favour of Projex at any time until they were joined to the ACT proceedings. Up until the time proceedings were commenced against Projex, Mr Cristallo had the option of pursuing a claim against them in another place. It is only with the joinder of Projex to the ACT court proceedings that the procedural law of the ACT is invoked as against them.
In the absence of any obligation prior to the institution of proceedings to comply with any requirements under the law of the ACT as they might otherwise have applied against Projex, I am not satisfied any relevant non-compliance is established. As a consequence, there is no requirement for leave.
I am mindful of the observations in decisions such as Cleary v Rinaudo [2013] 8 ACTLR 71; ACTCA 32, to the effect obligations arising in the pre-court phase do not simply cease with the commencement of proceedings. However, in this case, no obligations arose under the CLW Act in the pre-court phase and, in any event, the objects of the Act in terms of exchange of information are not frustrated where Projex, having been brought into existing proceedings, is at liberty to issue notices for production of documents, request particulars or to require discovery and, in this way, deal with gaining access to such information as it may require to enable it to defend the claim.
Orders
Associate: Date:
Cristallo
CBR Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd