Aziz v Prestige Property Services Pty Ltd - [2007] QSC 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Aziz v Prestige Property Services P/L and Anor [2007] QSC 265

PARTIES:

NOORY ABDULLAH AZIZ
(plaintiff)

v
PRESTIGE PROPERTY SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 003 562 203
(first defendant)
COLONIAL MUTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (QLD) PTY LTD

ACN 007 301 573

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS5861 of 2004

BS841 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2007

JUDGE:

Lyons J

ORDER:

Questions answered as follows:

(a)   No

(b)   Not necessary to decide

(c)    Yes

(d)   Yes

CATCHWORDS:

MENTAL HEALTH – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSON - Where plaintiff injured in workplace accident in 2000 – where plaintiff issued proceedings against the defendants claiming damages for personal injuries including psychiatric injury – where defendants made offer to settle claim – where plaintiff instructed solicitors to accept offer – whether plaintiff had capacity to prosecute proceedings at the time of accepting the offer – whether plaintiff has impaired capacity as present time – whether leave should be granted pursuant to r 72 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for proceedings to continue

Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423, applied
Gregory v Nominal Defendant & Anor [2005] QSC 308, applied
Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691, applied
Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162, applied

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 4, s 10, Sch 1 s 1, Sch 2 s 1, Sch 4
Public Trustee Act 1978, s 59
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 72, r 93, r 94, r 95

COUNSEL:

D Atkinson for the plaintiff
G W Diehm for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff
Bain Gasteen Lawyers for the first defendant
Carter Newell for the second defendant

Background

LYONS J: The plaintiff is currently 55 years of age. He was previously a semi-professional soccer player who had played soccer for Iraq prior to his migration to Australia in the late 1970s. He had been employed by the first defendant as a contract cleaner at various work sites and between September 1999 and 13 June 2000 the first defendant hired out his services to the second defendant as a cleaner at the work site at the Australia Fair Shopping Centre, Southport.

In the course of performing his duties on 13 June 2000 the plaintiff was required to take rubbish in a plastic moulded wheelie bin to a compactor which was situated at a loading bay within the shopping centre. He had to attach the wheelie-type bin to the compactor and then operate the compactor to lift the bin and empty its contents into the compactor. In the course of this work the bin fell from the compactor and struck the plaintiff, causing him to suffer personal injuries. He suffered a minor closed head injury, a musculo-ligamentis injury to the chest, a fracture of the right ninth and twelfth ribs, an undisplaced fracture of…

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 Aziz v Prestige Property Services Pty 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: [2007] QSC 265
Decision Date: 12 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aziz v Prestige Property Services Pty Ltd involves a plaintiff who was injured in a workplace accident in 2000. The plaintiff issued proceedings against the defendants, seeking damages for personal injuries, including a psychiatric injury. The defendants made an offer to settle the claim, which the plaintiff's solicitors were instructed to accept. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had the capacity to prosecute the proceedings at the time of accepting the settlement offer and whether the plaintiff's current capacity was impaired. Additionally, the court had to determine whether leave should be granted under rule 72 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for the proceedings to continue.

The court meticulously examined the plaintiff's capacity at the time of accepting the settlement offer. It considered the plaintiff's medical history, including a diagnosis of a psychiatric condition that potentially affected his decision-making ability. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not have the capacity to prosecute the proceedings at the time of accepting the offer. However, the court found that it was not necessary to decide whether the plaintiff's current capacity was impaired, as the primary focus was on the capacity at the time of the settlement acceptance. The court granted leave for the proceedings to continue under rule 72, allowing for the consideration of the plaintiff's current capacity and any other relevant issues in the context of the ongoing litigation.

In summary, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not have the capacity to prosecute the proceedings at the time of accepting the settlement offer. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiff's current capacity was impaired, and it granted leave for the proceedings to continue, enabling further assessment of the plaintiff's capacity and other pertinent matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Questions answered as follows:

(a) No

(b) Not necessary to decide

(d) Yes

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:	Aziz v Prestige Property Services P/L and Anor [2007] QSC 265
PARTIES:	NOORY ABDULLAH AZIZ (plaintiff) v PRESTIGE PROPERTY SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 003 562 203 (first defendant) COLONIAL MUTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 007 301 573 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS5861 of 2004 BS841 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2007
JUDGE:	Lyons J
ORDER:	Questions answered as follows: (a) No (b) Not necessary to decide (c) Yes (d) Yes
CATCHWORDS:	MENTAL HEALTH – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSON - Where plaintiff injured in workplace accident in 2000 – where plaintiff issued proceedings against the defendants claiming damages for personal injuries including psychiatric injury – where defendants made offer to settle claim – where plaintiff instructed solicitors to accept offer – whether plaintiff had capacity to prosecute proceedings at the time of accepting the offer – whether plaintiff has impaired capacity as present time – whether leave should be granted pursuant to r 72 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for proceedings to continue Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423, applied Gregory v Nominal Defendant & Anor [2005] QSC 308, applied Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691, applied Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162, applied Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 4, s 10, Sch 1 s 1, Sch 2 s 1, Sch 4 Public Trustee Act 1978, s 59 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 72, r 93, r 94, r 95
COUNSEL:	D Atkinson for the plaintiff G W Diehm for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff Bain Gasteen Lawyers for the first defendant Carter Newell for the second defendant