Baig v AWX Pty Ltd

Case [2017] QSC 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baig v AWX Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QSC 325

PARTIES:

RAHMATULLAH AHMAD BAIG

(Plaintiff)

v

AWX PTY LTD

(ACN 095 222 263)

(First Defendant)

AND

TEYS AUSTRALIA CENTRAL QUEENSLAND PTY LTD (ACN 105 563 255)
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S24 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

 20 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

28, 29, 30 November, 1 December 2017.

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $921,083.

2.   Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $964,254.11

3.   The parties have liberty to apply with respect to any issue of arithmetical error in the judgment sum

4.   The question of costs be reserved for further submissions if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was employed at Teys Australia Central Queensland Pty Ltd in the paunch room – where the plaintiff claims damages for a back injury that he says he suffered on 5 July 2010 in the course of his employment – whether the event alleged to have occurred on 5 July 2010 actually occurred

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – where the defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to prove there was any breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff – where the defendants submit the work system was safe – where it was common ground that if the work was performed at the pace and in the manner as shown in the workplace video, with adequate rotation of staff, then the work system was safe – where it is the plaintiff’s case that the video did not represent the usual pace and manner of work – whether the video represented the usual pace and manner of work – whether there was any breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – where it is not in issue that the plaintiff has a prolapsed disc – where it is not in issue that plaintiff complained of symptoms a few days after the incident – whether there exists a relevant causal connection between his work duties and the alleged injury - whether the plaintiff has any ongoing impairment relating to any work-related injury

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the defendants allege that the plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing injury that would have impacted on his future wellbeing – whether Mr Baig would have ended up in the same condition had the incident of 5 July 2010 not occurred

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – ECONOMIC LOSS – where the plaintiff has not worked since the incident save for a few days on light duties – where the…

Continue reading Baig v AWX Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Baig v AWX Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 325
Case
[2017] QSC 325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baig v AWX Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought compensation for a back injury sustained on 5 July 2010, which he alleged occurred in the course of his employment at Teys Australia Central Queensland Pty Ltd. The defendants, AWX Pty Ltd, contested the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the incident did not occur as alleged and that, even if it did, there was no breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The defendants submitted that the work system was safe and that any injury suffered by the plaintiff was not a result of the defendants’ negligence. The primary issues for the court to determine were whether the incident occurred as alleged, if there was a breach of the duty of care, whether the injury was causally linked to the alleged incident, and if the plaintiff's damages were properly quantified.

The court examined the video evidence presented and considered whether it accurately reflected the usual pace and manner of work at the workplace. The court found that the video did not represent the usual pace and manner of work and that there was indeed a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court also found that there was a relevant causal connection between the plaintiff's work duties and the alleged injury, and that the plaintiff had an ongoing impairment relating to the work-related injury. Regarding damages, the court concluded that the plaintiff would have ended up in the same condition had the incident of 5 July 2010 not occurred, and that his residual earning capacity was very limited.

After considering all the evidence, the court awarded judgment to the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $921,083 and against the second defendant in the sum of $964,254.11. The court gave the parties liberty to apply with respect to any issue of arithmetical error in the judgment sum and reserved the question of costs for further submissions if not agreed. This decision underscores the importance of workplace safety and the responsibilities of employers to ensure their systems are safe and to avoid breaches of duty that can lead to significant injury and liability.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $921,083.

2. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $964,254.11

3. The parties have liberty to apply with respect to any issue of arithmetical error in the judgment sum

4. The question of costs be reserved for further submissions if not agreed.

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.