Austin v Parmalat Australia Ltd - [2013] QSC 227

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Austin v Parmalat Australia Ltd [2013] QSC 227

PARTIES:

KEAN AUSTIN
(plaintiff)
v
PARMALAT AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 072 928 879
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5810 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11, 12, 13 and 14 June 2013

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $974,856.80

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – where the plaintiff worked for the defendant – where the plaintiff suffered injuries during a work accident – whether there was contributory negligence on behalf of the plaintiff

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – whether the plaintiff suffers from epilepsy or other psychiatric injury caused by the accident

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWCA 431
Gold Coast Bakeries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Heat & Control Pty Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 162
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Market Ltd [2008] NSWCA 206
Kirchner v ITT Water & Wastewater Ltd [2010] QSC 413
Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
Rodger v Johnston [2013] QSC 117

COUNSEL:

J Kimmins for the plaintiff
M O’Sullivan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

McCowans for the plaintiff
HWL Ebsworth for the defendant

The plaintiff sues for injuries he alleges were sustained during a work accident. The defendant conceded that primary liability ought to be found against it. It ran a case on contributory negligence and as to whether the injuries claimed resulted from the accident.

The Accident

The plaintiff was born on 1 September 1971. He began working for the defendant on 3 March 2008 as a truck driver. He had long experience working as a truck driver for previous employers. On 29 November 2008 the plaintiff drove a truck and trailer from the defendant’s South Brisbane depot to its Richlands depot. The trailer was loaded with crates of milk product in two litre plastic bottles. The two litre bottles were packed into plastic crates. Each crate held nine bottles and so weighed around 18 kilograms. The bottom of each plastic crate had a short lip running around, and slightly inside, its perimeter which provided some, but not much, stability when crates were stacked one on top of the other.

On the day of the accident the plaintiff had not stacked the crates of milk product in the trailer he was to transport. That was not his job.[1] Someone else had stacked crates inside the trailer and they were stacked six high, and six wide across the trailer. The defendant’s policy was that crates ought only to be stacked five high, but there was evidence which I accept[2] that loads were stacked six high on a regular basis.
[1]tt 1-14, 1-70.
[2]tt 1-14, 3-49.

There were two sprung metal rods used to secure the load. These hooked into slots…

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 Austin v Parmalat Australia 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: [2013] QSC 227
Decision Date: 26 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Austin v Parmalat Australia Ltd involved a claim for damages by the plaintiff, Austin, against his employer, Parmalat Australia Ltd, following an accident at work. Austin alleged that he suffered injuries during the course of his employment, which led to both physical and psychiatric harm. The court was tasked with determining whether Austin's injuries were a result of the accident and if there was any contributory negligence on his part. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the accident caused any psychiatric injury, such as epilepsy, and assess the appropriate quantum of damages.

The legal issues central to this case included the establishment of causation in relation to both physical and psychiatric injuries, the assessment of contributory negligence, and the calculation of damages. The court examined whether Parmalat was negligent in its duty of care towards Austin, and if so, the extent of that negligence. It also evaluated whether Austin's actions contributed to his injuries and if this should reduce the liability of Parmalat. The court further considered whether the accident caused any psychiatric conditions and the appropriate method for calculating damages, including both general and special damages.

In its judgment, the court found that Parmalat was indeed negligent in its duty of care towards Austin, contributing to his injuries. It ruled that Austin was not contributory negligent, thereby absolving him of any personal responsibility for the accident. The court determined that the accident did not cause any psychiatric injury such as epilepsy but acknowledged the presence of other psychiatric conditions resulting from the incident. Consequently, the court awarded Austin damages, calculating both general and special damages to reflect his losses, and ordered Parmalat to pay the total sum of $974,856.80 to Austin.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $974,856.80

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:	Austin v Parmalat Australia Ltd [2013] QSC 227
PARTIES:	KEAN AUSTIN (plaintiff) v PARMALAT AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 072 928 879 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5810 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11, 12, 13 and 14 June 2013
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $974,856.80
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – where the plaintiff worked for the defendant – where the plaintiff suffered injuries during a work accident – whether there was contributory negligence on behalf of the plaintiff TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – whether the plaintiff suffers from epilepsy or other psychiatric injury caused by the accident DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWCA 431 Gold Coast Bakeries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Heat & Control Pty Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 162 Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Market Ltd [2008] NSWCA 206 Kirchner v ITT Water & Wastewater Ltd [2010] QSC 413 Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638 Rodger v Johnston [2013] QSC 117
COUNSEL:	J Kimmins for the plaintiff M O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	McCowans for the plaintiff HWL Ebsworth for the defendant