DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Bakhit v Brisbane City Council [2017] QDC 155
PARTIES:
OSMAN BAKHIT
(plaintiff)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BD 1197/15
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2, 3, 4 and 5 May 2017
JUDGE:
Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:
The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the plaintiff alleges injury to his lumbar spine while lifting temporary fencing blocks by himself – whether the plaintiff injured his lumbar spine on the date and in the manner alleged – whether a system of work was in place for the lifting of temporary fencing blocks – whether the plaintiff had been instructed in any system of work for the lifting of temporary fencing blocks – whether the system of work caused the injury – if so whether the defendant breached its duty of care – whether the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injury – if so quantum of damages
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C, s 305D, s305E, s306N
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld)Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48, considered
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301, considered
Castro v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd (1983) 47 ALR 715, considered
Downes v Affinity Health Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 129, considered
Ferraloro v Preston Timber Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 627, considered
Guirguis Pty Ltd & Anor v Michel’s Patisserie System Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QCA 83, considered
Lusk v Sapwell [2012] 1 Qd R 507; [2011] QCA 59, considered
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319; [2012] QCA 315, considered
The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] QCA 103, consideredTurner v State of South Australia (1982) 42 ALR 669, considered
COUNSEL:
SD Anderson and JP Morris for the plaintiff
MT O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the defendant
Introduction
The plaintiff was employed as a labourer by the Brisbane City Council. He says that he injured his back on 13 July 2011 while lifting a concrete block that formed the base of temporary fencing. The defendant denies liability on the bases that any incident on 13 July 2011 did not occur as alleged by the plaintiff, and that it devised, implemented and maintained a safe system whereby concrete blocks were to be lifted by two people using an item of equipment referred to as a “lifter.” The quantum of damages is also in dispute.
The plaintiff’s case
The plaintiff’s case is that between the time when he commenced employment with the defendant in 2007 and 13 July 2011, he received no…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bakhit v Brisbane City Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QDC 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and found that there was no clear system of work in place for the lifting of temporary fencing blocks, and the plaintiff had not been instructed in any such system. It was determined that while the plaintiff sustained injuries to his lumbar spine, there was insufficient evidence to establish that these injuries occurred on the date and in the manner alleged by the plaintiff, nor was it proven that the absence of a system of work directly caused the injuries. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant had not breached its duty of care by failing to provide a system of work for lifting the fencing blocks. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the basis that the defendant was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
The court did not find it necessary to determine the quantum of damages, as the primary issue of liability was not established in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed in its entirety.
Orders
Orders of the court
The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
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.