Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd - [2024] QSC 88

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 88

PARTIES:
HAMDE BAKHIT

(plaintiff)
v
HARTLEY HEALY PTY LTD ACN 151 817 971
(defendant)

FILENO: BS 14554 of 2021

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 14 May 2024

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: On the papers

JUDGE: Sullivan J

ORDER:
The order of the Court will be as follows:

1. Pursuant to r 367(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the defendant be granted leave to reopen its case and adduce the following further evidence in the hearing of the separate questions, namely:

(a)   affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 2 February 2024 (in full);

(b) affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 28 March 2024 (paragraphs [28] to [48] and exhibits BJH-8 to BJH-11);

(c)   affidavit of Trina Louise Cash filed 27 March 2024 (in full).

2.   Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – RE-OPENING

THE CASE – BY PARTY – where the defendant seeks leave to re-open the case and adduce further evidence – whether leave ought to be granted in the circumstances

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 367(1)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Davies v Davies (No 1) [2019] QSC 293

Enkelmann v Stuart [No 2] [2023] QCA 198

COUNSEL:

AP Collins with JR Moxon for the plaintiff

CC Heywood-Smith with M Eade and J Borja-Erece for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the plaintiff Hughes & Lewis Lawyers for the defendant

The current application is brought by the defendant pursuant to r 367(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, for an order allowing the defendant to reopen its case and adduce further evidence in respect of a trial of separate questions which was heard between 5 to 7 February 2024.
The proceeding involves the proper construction of a release clause within a settlement deed entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant some time ago. That clause is as follows:
“7.1In consideration of Harley Healy and Allen-Ankin taking the steps set out in clauses 2 to 6 of this Deed, Bakhit releases and discharges Hartley Healy and Allen-Ankins from all claims which she may now have or may at any time have had or may at any time in the future have against Hartley Healy and/or Allen-Ankins in respect of or in connection with:
(a) the Allegations;
(b) the Discrimination complaint; and
(c) any other matter relating to Bakhit’s employment with Hartley Healy or the cessation of that employment;
Other than any claim for statutory benefits under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) or for unpaid superannuation which she may be entitled to make.”
One of the issues in the proceeding is whether, on the proper construction of the release clause, a common law damages claim for personal injuries was released in respect of an injury said to have arisen whilst the plaintiff was in the employ…

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 Bakhit v Hartley Healy 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: [2024] QSC 88
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd concerned a dispute over the defendant's application for leave to reopen its case to adduce further evidence. The matter was before the court on a motion for leave to reopen the case. The legal issues focused on whether the defendant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence, considering the circumstances surrounding the application.

The court considered the principles governing the granting of leave to reopen a case to adduce further evidence, which requires the party seeking leave to demonstrate that the evidence is material and that there were compelling reasons for the failure to lead it earlier. The court evaluated the affidavits submitted by the defendant and the explanations provided for the delay in presenting the evidence. The court was also mindful of the need to balance the interests of both parties and the importance of finality in litigation.

The court found that the defendant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the evidence was indeed material to the issues in the case. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application for leave to reopen its case and adduce the specified further evidence. The court reserved the question of costs for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court will be as follows:

1. Pursuant to r 367(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the defendant be granted leave to reopen its case and adduce the following further evidence in the hearing of the separate questions, namely:

(a) affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 2 February 2024 (in full);

(b) affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 28 March 2024 (paragraphs [28] to [48] and exhibits BJH-8 to BJH-11);

2. Costs reserved.

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:	Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 88
PARTIES:	HAMDE BAKHIT (plaintiff) v HARTLEY HEALY PTY LTD ACN 151 817 971 (defendant)
FILENO:	BS 14554 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	14 May 2024
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Sullivan J
ORDER:	The order of the Court will be as follows: 1. Pursuant to r 367(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the defendant be granted leave to reopen its case and adduce the following further evidence in the hearing of the separate questions, namely: (a) affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 2 February 2024 (in full); (b) affidavit of Belinda Jayne Hughes filed 28 March 2024 (paragraphs [28] to [48] and exhibits BJH-8 to BJH-11); (c) affidavit of Trina Louise Cash filed 27 March 2024 (in full). 2. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – RE-OPENING THE CASE – BY PARTY – where the defendant seeks leave to re-open the case and adduce further evidence – whether leave ought to be granted in the circumstances Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 367(1) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)