Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths Ltd - [2012] QDC 98

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths Ltd [2012] QDC 98

PARTIES:

ELHAN ALAVI-MOGHADDAM
(Applicant)

AND

WOOLWORTHS LTD (ACN 000 014 675)
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 5109/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for directions

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 April 2012

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 287 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the respondent provide answers to the applicant’s request for information as requested in the applicant’s solicitors’ correspondence dated 11 January 2012, paragraphs 2(b), (c), (d) and (e) which is exhibited to the affidavit of Amanda Charmaine Karpeles filed 16 April 2012 and which is contained on pages 49 and 50 of the exhibits to that affidavit.1.

Pursuant to r 250 of UCPR, the applicant be permitted to attend at the respondent’s premises at Morningside together with her solicitor and engineer for the purpose of an inspection of that part of the respondent’s premises where the applicant alleges she was working (paragraph 4 of amended statement of claim).2.

3.          The applicant’s engineer be permitted to take measurements and photographs of the relevant parts of the respondent’s premises.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 279 and s 287 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) that the respondent provide information and documentation relevant to an injury allegedly sustained by the applicant in the workplace – whether the respondent has failed in its duty of disclosure pursuant to s 279 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) –
r 250 – applicant seeks further order allowing an inspection of the workplace pursuant to r 250 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether inspection of the workplace is necessary for deciding an issue in this proceeding

Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd (2002) 2 Qd R 345; [2002] QSC 042, cited
Hartley v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (Unreported, No. 133 of 1995, District Court of Queensland, 13 December 1996), cited
Karaka v Woolworths Ltd (Unreported, No 597 of 2009, Supreme Court of Queensland, 15 June 2009), cited

Thornton v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 165, cited

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 51B(5)(d)
Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld), s 37(2)(b)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 250

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 273, 279, 287, 289, 290A(2)

COUNSEL:

GJ Cross for the applicant.

JB Rolls for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

AK Compensation Lawyers for the applicant.

DLA Piper Australia for the respondent.

The issue

The applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 279 and s 287 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA) that the respondent provide information and documentation relevant to an injury allegedly sustained by the applicant in the workplace in or about April 2007.

The applicant seeks a further order allowing an inspection of that workplace pursuant to r 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR).

The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QDC 98
Decision Date: 17 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alavi-Moghaddam initiated legal proceedings against Woolworths Ltd in the Queensland Magistrates Court, seeking orders under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The applicant, Alavi-Moghaddam, contended that Woolworths Ltd had failed to comply with its duty of disclosure by not providing necessary information and documentation related to an alleged workplace injury. Additionally, Alavi-Moghaddam requested an inspection of the workplace pursuant to rule 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), to aid in deciding the issues in the proceeding.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Woolworths Ltd had indeed failed in its duty of disclosure under section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and whether an inspection of the workplace was necessary for resolving the issues in the case. The court had to determine if the applicant's requests for information and the proposed inspection were justified and necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute.

The court found that Woolworths Ltd had not adequately fulfilled its duty of disclosure, as required by section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Consequently, the court ordered Woolworths Ltd to provide the information requested by Alavi-Moghaddam. Additionally, the court concluded that an inspection of the workplace was necessary to resolve the issues in the case and granted the applicant permission to inspect the premises, accompanied by her solicitor and engineer. The engineer was also permitted to take measurements and photographs of the relevant parts of the premises.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 287 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the respondent provide answers to the applicant’s request for information as requested in the applicant’s solicitors’ correspondence dated 11 January 2012, paragraphs 2(b), (c), (d) and (e) which is exhibited to the affidavit of Amanda Charmaine Karpeles filed 16 April 2012 and which is contained on pages 49 and 50 of the exhibits to that affidavit.1.

Pursuant to r 250 of UCPR, the applicant be permitted to attend at the respondent’s premises at Morningside together with her solicitor and engineer for the purpose of an inspection of that part of the respondent’s premises where the applicant alleges she was working (paragraph 4 of amended statement of claim).2.

3. The applicant’s engineer be permitted to take measurements and photographs of the relevant parts of the respondent’s premises.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths Ltd [2012] QDC 98
PARTIES:	ELHAN ALAVI-MOGHADDAM (Applicant) AND WOOLWORTHS LTD (ACN 000 014 675) (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 5109/11
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for directions
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 April 2012
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	Pursuant to s 287 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the respondent provide answers to the applicant’s request for information as requested in the applicant’s solicitors’ correspondence dated 11 January 2012, paragraphs 2(b), (c), (d) and (e) which is exhibited to the affidavit of Amanda Charmaine Karpeles filed 16 April 2012 and which is contained on pages 49 and 50 of the exhibits to that affidavit.1. Pursuant to r 250 of UCPR, the applicant be permitted to attend at the respondent’s premises at Morningside together with her solicitor and engineer for the purpose of an inspection of that part of the respondent’s premises where the applicant alleges she was working (paragraph 4 of amended statement of claim).2. 3. The applicant’s engineer be permitted to take measurements and photographs of the relevant parts of the respondent’s premises.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 279 and s 287 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) that the respondent provide information and documentation relevant to an injury allegedly sustained by the applicant in the workplace – whether the respondent has failed in its duty of disclosure pursuant to s 279 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) – r 250 – applicant seeks further order allowing an inspection of the workplace pursuant to r 250 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether inspection of the workplace is necessary for deciding an issue in this proceeding Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd (2002) 2 Qd R 345; [2002] QSC 042, cited Hartley v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (Unreported, No. 133 of 1995, District Court of Queensland, 13 December 1996), cited Karaka v Woolworths Ltd (Unreported, No 597 of 2009, Supreme Court of Queensland, 15 June 2009), cited Thornton v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 165, cited Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 51B(5)(d) Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld), s 37(2)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 250 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 273, 279, 287, 289, 290A(2)
COUNSEL:	GJ Cross for the applicant. JB Rolls for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	AK Compensation Lawyers for the applicant. DLA Piper Australia for the respondent.