SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16
PARTIES:
CHRISTOPHER LEE BRADLEY
(plaintiff)
v
PLACEMENTS (PNG) LTD
(defendant)FILE NO:
10682 of 2013
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
27 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 February 2014
JUDGE:
Daubney J
ORDER:
1. The application filed 20 December 2013 is dismissed;
2. I will hear the parties as to costs and with respect to any further orders or directions.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where plaintiff claims damages for personal injury in course of employment – where defendant is employer – where defendant is a company incorporated in Papua New Guinea – where sole basis of defendant’s application is that proceeding should be stayed or dismissed on the basis that the Supreme Court of Queensland is a forum non conveniens – whether the proceeding should be stayed or dismissed on the basis that the Supreme Court of Queensland is an inappropriate forum for the resolution of this dispute
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 16
Henry v Henry (1961) CLR 571, followed
Placer (PNG) Pty Ltd v Anderson [1997] QCA 74, consideredCOUNSEL:
J A Griffin QC, with him D H Katter, for the plaintiff
J H Davies for the defendantSOLICITORS:
Smith Lawyers for the plaintiff
McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the defendant
By a claim and statement of claim filed on 12 November 2013, the plaintiff commenced this proceeding against the defendant, a company incorporated in Papua New Guinea, seeking damages for personal injuries said to have been suffered by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with the defendant.
On 16 December 2013, the defendant filed a conditional notice of intention to defend. The defendant now applies for an order pursuant to UCPR r 16 for the proceeding to be struck out or permanently stayed.
By his statement of claim, the plaintiff relevantly alleges:
(a)As at 3 December 2010, he was employed by the defendant as a gas compression supervisor in Papua New Guinea pursuant to a contract of employment made on 6 April 2010;
(b)On 3 December 2010, while the plaintiff was working at a specific site in Papua New Guinea, he was engaged in manually unloading a cylinder head, in the course of which he sustained an injury to his lower back;
(c)He performed the unloading of the cylinder head manually with a co-worker, one Roger Hereva;
(d)The injury to his lumbar spine at L4/5 and L5/S1 required a total disc replacement at L4/5 and a spinal fusion at L5/S1;
(e)The injury was caused by the negligence or breach of contract of the defendant (the statement of claim particularises the breaches of duty on which the plaintiff relies);
(f)The plaintiff claims damages for the personal injury and its consequences, totalling $1,244,432.
The only basis for the defendant’s present application is the forum non conveniens principle. Counsel for the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bradley v Placements (PNG) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] QSC 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the Supreme Court of Queensland was indeed an inappropriate forum for the resolution of this dispute. In considering this, the court evaluated various factors, including the availability of an alternative forum, the convenience of the parties, and the interests of justice. The plaintiff argued that the Queensland court was an appropriate forum because the defendant had business operations in Queensland and had previously agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of Queensland courts. The defendant countered that Papua New Guinea was a more appropriate forum due to the location of the injury and the incorporation of the company.
The court dismissed the defendant’s application, concluding that the proceeding should not be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficient connection with Queensland, given the defendant's business operations and previous agreement to submit to the jurisdiction. Additionally, the court considered the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, finding that the Queensland court was well-suited to hear the case. The decision underscored the importance of the plaintiff’s ability to access a forum where they could effectively pursue their claims, especially in light of the defendant's prior agreement to submit to Queensland jurisdiction.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application filed 20 December 2013 is dismissed;
2. I will hear the parties as to costs and with respect to any further orders or directions.
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.