Author admin

Background

For the last 4 years, we doggedly pursued a claim on behalf of a client who was kicked by a horse.

By the time our client saw a solicitor of our firm, he had been denied WorkCover because on review it was determined he was not a worker within section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Things were looking very grim. It seemed that there was no way for our client to access compensation or any damages.
Continue reading “Sterling Law secures indemnity costs order against QBE”

Author admin

“In making those orders and in argument during the hearing of the application on 28 April 2020, the Court referred to the various difficulties with the plaintiff’s case as it is presently pleaded. In many respects, those difficulties were similar to the submissions made on behalf of the first defendant and the third defendant at the compulsory conference in this matter.
The first defendant and the third defendant consider that the plaintiff’s claim has no prospects of success against any defendant.”

 – letter from Barry Nilsson to Sterling Law dated 18 May 2020. Continue reading “Stewart Boyd scores stunning upset in District Court after horse kick”

Author admin

It is a well-established principle in the law of negligence that a defendant should only have to take precautions against reasonably foreseeable risks to others. Reasonable foreseeability can be contrasted with risks that are “far fetched or fanciful”.

The 2013 Queensland Court of Appeal cases of Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270 and Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281 are useful reminders of the centrality of the concept of reasonable foreseeability of risk in negligence cases against employers.
Continue reading “The question of reasonable foreseeability of injury”

Author admin

Are there time limits on when you can sue? Read about what limitation periods are, and how they work.

Limitation periods in the law impose time limits within which types of civil proceedings should ordinarily be commenced. In commercial litigation, statutes of limitations impose most of the limitation periods. In Queensland, the statute of limitations is the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

There are other time limits imposed under the law, but this article concerns time limits imposed under statutes of limitations, particularly the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).
Continue reading “Time to sue: The law of limitation periods”

Author admin

The Claimant Warren Jonathan was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 4 August 2012. He subsequently through his solicitors sent to the CTP insurer RACQ a Notice of Accident Claim form under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The insurer confirmed that the form was compliant with Motor Accident Insurance Act  requirements and later admitted liability in full for the accident. Continue reading “Claimant loses injury case for being out of contact to his solicitors”

Author admin

Debbie Deans was employed as a specialist schoolteacher by Riverside Christian College in Maryborough when on 4 March 2015 she slipped over a grape on the linoleum flooring of a foyer in G Block during a ‘fruit break’ during the course of her employment, fracturing her left patella. Continue reading “Teacher’s appeal against District Court decision over grape slip dismissed”

Author admin

On 25 November 2014, the Plaintiff Glenn Garside was riding his motorcycle along the Gregory Highway travelling north from Emerald to Capella when an object fell from a truck (the truck) and struck him, causing personal injuries to him.

Continue reading “Injured plaintiff not ordered to pay costs of successful defendant”

Author admin

The Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 4 August 2012. He subsequently sent to the insurer a Notice of Accident Claim form. The insurer confirmed that the form was compliant and later admitted liability in full for the accident.

In about March 2013, the Claimant lost contact with his solicitors and did not contact them again until 29 July 2015. There was evidence later adduced in the Court of Appeal that he may have been avoiding the authorities as a result of a suspected arson.

The Claimant applied to the District Court for leave (special permission) to extend the time for bringing his claim in a court so that he would have time to comply with the legislative pre-proceeding requirements.

Section 11(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 provides that:

“an action for damages for negligence, trespass, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or a provision made by or under a statute or independently of a contract or such provision) in which damages claimed by the plaintiff consist of or include damages in respect of personal injury to any person… shall not be brought after the expiration of 3 years from the date on which the cause of action arose.”

However, the Claimant also had to comply with pre-proceeding steps provided by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 prior to commencing his claim, including cooperating with the insurer, making himself available for independent medical examinations and attempting to resolve the claim by compulsory conference before his claim for damages could be filed in court.

Section 57 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 provides as follows:

“(1) If notice of a motor vehicle accident claim is given under division 3, or an application for leave to bring a proceeding based on a motor vehicle accident claim is made under division 3, before the end of the period of limitation applying to the claim, the claimant may bring a proceeding in court based on the claim even though the period of limitation has ended.

“(2) However, the proceeding may only be brought after the end of the period of limitation if it is brought within—

(a) 6 months after the notice is given or leave to bring the proceeding is granted; or

(b) a longer period allowed by the court.”

The District Court dismissed the application to extend the time for the following reasons:

• 1. The Claimant’s failure to comply with his pre-proceeding obligations had been caused by his decision to not make contact with his solicitors
• 2. The insurer may have been prejudiced by the Claimant’s long absence, because if his condition had improved or worsened it would now not be able to verify when this may have occurred
• 3. The Court found that the Claimant probably had been advised of the three year time limit for filing his claim, and therefore would have been aware of the potential consequences of his long absence.

The result of the District Court’s decision was that the Claimant missed the time limit and his claim was statute barred. This decision was upheld on appeal. As a result, the Claimant lost his right to pursue the claim. Costs were awarded against him in the District Court and the Court of Appeal.

This is an important case concerning a Claimant’s responsibilities and obligations in respect of his or her own claim.

This case provides a salutary lesson in terms of the following:

1. 1. The need to be contactable by your solicitors throughout your claim
2. 2. The need to avoid any undue delay of your claim
3. 3. The importance of observing the three year time limit and being proactive where possible in avoiding the need to apply to Court to extend the time limit .

Personal injury claims are serious matters and must be taken seriously. In particular, it is extremely important for a Claimant to comply with their obligations at law, as failing to do so may jeopardise their claim.

Author admin

Aaron Michael Brain had been dismissed from his employment with Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd in early January 2013. On the night of 1 February 2013, Brain approached different female Asian workers as they left at the end of their shifts in the carpark of Inghams Enterprises’ Murrarie factory. The first three women he approached between about 11:00pm and 11:45pm found his behaviour to be strange and felt some apprehension, but managed to disengage and leave.

At 11:45pm Brain approached the Plaintiff Kim Yen Tat and gave her the false story about having a pregnant partner who needed help. She declined to accompany him, walked over to her car, and got into the driver’s seat. However, Brain stopped her from closing the car door. He then said “Can I give you a hug?” and tried to put his hand on her neck. She pushed his hand away and felt something stick into her hand. She then pushed him away, got out of the car screaming and ran away. Brain left the scene after workers came to her aid.

Immediately after this incident, Inghams Enterprises send a notice to all its employees warning them of the risks of being in or remaining in the carpark alone.

Brain, who was on parole for other violent offences at the time of the incident, had his parole suspended on 6 February 2013. He later pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm in respect of the incident and on 23 January 2014 was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after 6 months.

The Plaintiff suffered significant post-traumatic stress disorder injury from the incident and sued her employer for negligence.

Section 305B of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (QLD) provides that:

“305B General Principles

(1) A person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of injury to a worker unless:

(a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought reasonably to have known); and

(b) the risk was not insignificant; and

(c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the person would have taken the precautions.

(2) In deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of injury, the court is to consider the following (among other relevant things):

(a) the probability that the injury would occur if care were not taken;

(b) the likely seriousness of the injury;

(c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of injury.”

Section 305C of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (QLD) provides that:

“305C Other Principles

In a proceeding relating to liability for a breach of duty—

(a) The burden of taking precautions to avoid a risk of injury includes the burden of taking precautions to avoid similar risks of injury for which the person may be responsible; and

(b) The fact that a risk of injury could have been avoided by doing something in a different way does not of itself give rise to or effect liability for the way in which the thing was done; and

(c) The subsequent taking of action that would (had the action been taken earlier) have avoided a risk of injury does not of itself give rise to or affect liability in relation to the risk and does of itself constitute an admission of liability in connection with the risk.”

Section 305D of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (QLD) provides that:

“305D General principles

(1) A decision that a breach of duty caused particular injury comprises the following elements—

(a) the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the injury (“factual causation” );

(b) it is appropriate for the scope of the liability of the person in breach to extend to the injury so caused (“scope of liability”).”

The primary judge noted that it did not matter that the precise manner in which the plaintiff received her injuries was not foreseeable, and that he was required to bring a prospective, rather than a hindsight analysis to bear on the question of foreseeability. He also acknowledged that the essence of the Inghams Enterprises’ argument was that the injury was not foreseeable due to the practical absence of any prior incidence of violence by a third party to an employee.

However, primary judge relied on expert evidence from engineers experienced in risk management and security assessments to the effect that the safety of workers from violence and assault should be managed proactively, and held that Inghams Enterprises should have engaged in an assessment of the risks of third party violence to its employees as well as how it should respond to those risks. According to the primary judge, Inghams Enterprises could and should have the installed duress alarms at regular intervals in the carpark and warned its employees in a similar way the way it did after the incident.  Inghams Enterprises’ reliance on factually distinguishable cases was rejected because of evidence at trial that many female workers left the workplace late at night five times a week through a large, open car park in an industrial area.

As a result, the primary judge found that Inghams Enterprises had been negligent and had to pay damages to the plaintiff. Inghams Enterprises appealed against this judgment.

On appeal, Inghams Enterprises argued that the primary judge had erred in finding that Inghams Enterprises should have taken action to prevent the incident which caused the injury. It argued that the primary judge’s reference to the events after the incident were contrary to s305C(c) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act because that approach treated the instruction which had been given to the staff as an admission of liability. Inghams Enterprises also contended that the findings erroneously involved the application of hindsight, because they were inherently specific to the unusual facts of the case, which did not involve a single assault, but a protracted course of abnormal conduct prior to an assault. The Court of Appeal held that these arguments did not take into account the abovementioned expert evidence led at trial.

Inghams Enterprises also submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the installation of duress alarms and training of and warnings to staff would have prevented the incident, and therefore causation had not been established. It was argued that the primary judge’s conclusions on causation rested on the propositions that had duress alarms proper training and instructions been provided, at least one of the other workers involved in the earlier encounters with Brain would have been sufficiently concerned about him that they would have called security, the security guard receiving the report would have left the security office and found Brain, Brain would have been required to leave, and Brain in turn would have complied with that direction. Justice Bond held that it was not open on the evidence for the primary judge to reach such conclusions.

Furthermore, as Gotterson JA noted, the trial judge did not make findings that a failure to install duress alarms or upgrade of the CCTV monitoring was the cause of the respondent’s injuries.

Because the judge erred in finding that causation had been established, the appeal was allowed and the decision of the primary judge was set aside, with costs awarded to Inghams Enterprises.

This case is a good reminder that even if an employer has breached their duty of care, it is still necessary for a plaintiff to prove that the breach caused their loss. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to establish that training and warnings would probably have prevented Brain from approaching the Plaintiff in the carpark. Because causation at law was not proven at trial, the result was that the claim against Ingham Enterprises had to fail.