Bradley v Woolworths Limited - [2010] QSC 284

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bradley v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 284
PARTIES: MICHELLE WENDY BRADLEY
Applicant
v
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (ACN 000 014 675)
Respondent
FILE NO/S: 4737 of 2010
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 2 July 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 25 May 2010
JUDGE: Ann Lyons J
ORDER:
CATCHWORDS: TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS PREMISES – INJURIES TO PERSON ENTERING PREMISES –Where the applicant alleges she slipped and fell in the fruit and vegetables section of the respondent’s supermarket – where the applicant has given Notice of Claim to the respondent pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA) – where the applicant sent the respondent a letter seeking information pursuant to s 27(1)(b) of PIPA regarding the circumstances of, or the reasons for, the incident – where the respondent has not responded to 11 paragraphs of the applicant’s letter – whether the respondent must respond to those paragraphs
Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276
Haug v Jupiters Limited trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane
[2007] QSC 68
RACQ/Gio Insurance Ltd v Ogilvie [2002] 1 Qd R 536
Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act (Qld) 2002
COUNSEL: RAI Myers for the applicant
R Whiteford for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Shine Lawyers for the applicant
DLA Phillips Fox Lawyers for the respondent
ANN LYONS J:
Background

The Applicant alleges that on 15 November 2009:
(a)         she slipped and fell and suffered personal injuries whilst walking in the fruit and vegetable section of the Woolworths supermarket located within the Westfield Garden City Shopping Centre situated on the corner of Kessels and Logan Roads in Upper Mount Gravatt in the State of Queensland (“the supermarket”);
(b)        she slipped and fell when she stepped in a large amount of water present on the floor of the fruit and vegetables section of the supermarket and, more specifically, present under and around a dark coloured mat situated on the floor of the fruit and vegetable section;
(c)         the respondent was the owner and occupier of the supermarket; and
(d)        her accident and injuries were caused by the respondent’s negligence.
On 10 December 2009, the applicant gave Notice of Claim, pursuant to the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA), to the respondent. The applicant gave notice of a proposed claim to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a slip and fall at the respondent’s premises located at Westfield Garden City Shopping Centre at Upper Mount Gravatt.
On 12 February 2010, the applicant’s solicitors sought information about the circumstances of, or the reasons for, the incident in which the applicant was involved, pursuant to the provisions of s 27(1)(b) of PIPA.

[4] On 30 April 2010, the respondent, by statutory declaration, provided the information sought by paras 2, 3, 8, 14 and 16 of the applicant’s solicitor’s letter.
The application

By this application filed on 10 May 2010 the applicant seeks…

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.

Continue reading Bradley v Woolworths Limited

Details

AGLC: Bradley v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 284
Case: [2010] QSC 284
Decision Date: 2/07/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Ms. Bradley, sought damages for injuries she sustained after allegedly slipping and falling in the fruit and vegetable section of Woolworths Limited's supermarket. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. Ms. Bradley served notice of her claim on Woolworths Limited in accordance with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). She subsequently wrote to Woolworths Limited requesting information about the incident, as permitted under section 27(1)(b) of the Act. Woolworths Limited did not respond to 11 out of the 18 paragraphs of Ms. Bradley's letter, prompting her to seek a court order requiring Woolworths Limited to respond to the outstanding paragraphs.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether Woolworths Limited was obligated to respond to the specific paragraphs in Ms. Bradley's letter that remained unanswered. The court considered whether there were any legitimate reasons for Woolworths Limited's failure to respond and whether the failure to respond to the specific paragraphs constituted a breach of the statutory obligations under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The court had to balance the rights of the claimant to obtain information against the respondent's rights and obligations under the statutory framework.

In its decision, the court held that Woolworths Limited was indeed required to respond to the outstanding paragraphs of Ms. Bradley's letter. The court noted that the failure to respond to these specific paragraphs constituted a breach of the statutory obligations under the Act. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions were designed to facilitate the exchange of information between parties and that non-compliance with these provisions could prejudice the claimant's ability to pursue their claim effectively. The court ordered Woolworths Limited to provide the requested information within a specified timeframe.

The final order of the court mandated that Woolworths Limited respond to the outstanding paragraphs of Ms. Bradley's letter within 14 days of the court's decision. The court also directed the parties to attempt to resolve the matter through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, as permitted by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The court's decision underscored the importance of compliance with statutory obligations in personal injury proceedings and reinforced the need for parties to cooperate in the exchange of information.

Orders