Brady v Woolworth Limited - [2010] QDC 260

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brady v Woolworth Limited [2010] QDC 260

PARTIES:

GLORIA HELEN BRADY
applicant

V

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (ABN 88 000 014 675)
respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD 657/08

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 June 2010

JUDGE:

Ryrie DCJ

ORDER:

The applicant be given leave to make an application in the proceedings.           1.

The respondent provide the information requested by the applicant in its letter dated 26 March 2010 that is in the respondent’s possession, to be verified by statutory declaration within 30 days.  2.

The respondent provide the Further & Better Particulars requested by the applicant in its letter of 26 March 2010 within 14 days.  3.

The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application, to be assessed on a standard basis.  4.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act – pre-litigation procedure – obligations under s 27 to disclose documents and provide information – scope of – whether failure to comply

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), ss 4(2), 27(1), 34, 35, Schedule
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rules 160, 444, 470

Angus v Conelius [2008] 1 Qd R 101, cited
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, cited
Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276, applied
Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645, applied
Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122, cited
Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91, applied

COUNSEL:

G J Cross for the applicant
K Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Colin Patino & Company for the applicant
DLA Philips Fox for the respondent

This is an application for an order under s35(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA) that the respondent provide certain information sought by the applicant, which the applicant says the respondent is required to provide by s27(1)(b) of PIPA.

The applicant also seeks an order under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) rule 160 that the respondent provide further and better particulars in respect of para 4.16 of its’ amended defence filed 16^th December 2009 within 14 days.

As this application was only filed after both parties had signed a request for trial date in this matter, the applicant requires the leave of this court to bring its’ application: (UCPR 470).

Preliminary Issue – should leave be granted?

Counsel for the respondent argued both orally and in his written submissions (marked ex 2) that leave should not be granted in all the circumstances of this matter primarily because the applicant had been ‘tardy’ in not bringing its’ application before it had signed the Request for Trial Date on the 10^th May 2010. Counsel also made a further point of argument that the information that was now being sought by the applicant was, in any event, information which the applicant already had or indeed, the…

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 Brady v Woolworth Limited

Details

AGLC: Brady v Woolworth Limited [2010] QDC 260
Case: [2010] QDC 260
Decision Date: 25 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brady v Woolworth Limited, the matter before the court involved a dispute concerning alleged negligence leading to personal injuries. The plaintiff sought to enforce the respondent's compliance with pre-litigation procedures under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The primary focus was on whether the respondent had failed to disclose certain documents and provide information as required by section 27 of the Act.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of the respondent's obligations under section 27 to disclose documents and provide information. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the respondent had failed to provide the information requested by the plaintiff in a letter dated 26 March 2010. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent had adequately responded to requests for Further & Better Particulars made by the plaintiff in the same letter.

In its reasoning, the court found that the respondent had not fulfilled its obligations under section 27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The court emphasised that the respondent was required to provide the information requested by the plaintiff within 30 days, verified by a statutory declaration. Furthermore, the court mandated that the respondent provide the requested Further & Better Particulars within 14 days. Given the respondent's failure to comply, the court ordered that the respondent pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on a standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant be given leave to make an application in the proceedings. 1.

The respondent provide the Further & Better Particulars requested by the applicant in its letter of 26 March 2010 within 14 days. 3.

The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application, to be assessed on a standard basis. 4.

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

The respondent provide the information requested by the applicant in its letter dated 26 March 2010 that is in the respondent’s possession, to be verified by statutory declaration within 30 days. The respondent provide the Further & Better Particulars requested by the applicant in its letter of 26 March 2010 within 14 days. The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application, to be assessed on a standard basis.

CITATION:	Brady v Woolworth Limited [2010] QDC 260
PARTIES:	GLORIA HELEN BRADY applicant V WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (ABN 88 000 014 675) respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD 657/08
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 June 2010
JUDGE:	Ryrie DCJ
ORDER:	The applicant be given leave to make an application in the proceedings. 1. The respondent provide the information requested by the applicant in its letter dated 26 March 2010 that is in the respondent’s possession, to be verified by statutory declaration within 30 days. 2. The respondent provide the Further & Better Particulars requested by the applicant in its letter of 26 March 2010 within 14 days. 3. The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application, to be assessed on a standard basis. 4.
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURIES – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act – pre-litigation procedure – obligations under s 27 to disclose documents and provide information – scope of – whether failure to comply Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), ss 4(2), 27(1), 34, 35, Schedule Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rules 160, 444, 470 Angus v Conelius [2008] 1 Qd R 101, cited Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, cited Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276, applied Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645, applied Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122, cited Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91, applied
COUNSEL:	G J Cross for the applicant K Holyoak for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Colin Patino & Company for the applicant DLA Philips Fox for the respondent