Brew v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2003] QCA 504

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brew v WorkCover Qld [2003] QCA 504

PARTIES:

BENJAMIN ANDREW BREW
(applicant/appellant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11762 of 2002
SC No 940 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2003

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA and Dutney and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – whether the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 or the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies to the appellant’s injury – whether the injury suffered by the appellant was caused by an act or omission in respect of a motor vehicle

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) s 280, s285
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) s 5(1)(a), s 5(1)(b), s 11(2)

Boath v Central Queensland Meat Export Co Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 142, cited
Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v FAI General Insurance Company Limited (1995) 1 Qd R 142, discussed
McEwan v Council of the City of the Gold Coast (1987) 1 Qd R 337, considered
Manning v Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430; Appeal No 35 of 1994, 26 October 1994, considered
Patullo v Grays Sawmills Pty Ltd [1995] 2 Qd R 528, cited
SGIO (Qld) v Workers’ Compensation Board (Qld) (1988) 5 ANZ Insurance Cases 75,436, cited
Stevens v Nudd [1978] Qd R 96, cited
Suncorp Insurance & Finance v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland (1990) 1 Qd R 185, considered
Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (1989) 167 CLR 45, followed

COUNSEL:

A J Moon for the appellant
R J Douglas SC, with K F Holyoak, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Connolly Suthers for the appellant
Blake Dawson Waldron for the respondent

  1. JERRARD JA: In this appeal I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Dutney J, and respectfully agree with those and with the order his Honour proposes.  I add the following comments. In Manning v Taroom Shire Council & Ors [1994] QCA 430, Pincus JA and Derrington J observed at p 3 of their joint judgment that there is ample authority to the effect that an employer may be liable in respect of a vehicle because of a defective system of work involving that vehicle. Their Honours cited McEwan v Council of the City of the Gold Coast [1987] 1 Qd R 337 at 341, and Suncorp Insurance & Finance v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1990] 1 Qd R 185 at 190. In the latter case Derrington J held at first instance[1] that:

    [1][1990] 1 Qd R 185 at 191.

“Once…the lack of the provision of proper instructions and the safe system of work in relation to the parking of the Toyota vehicle [is established] it must be said that the…

Continue reading Brew v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brew v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QCA 504
Case
[2003] QCA 504
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Brew v WorkCover Queensland was brought before the court by Brew, who was seeking to have the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal reviewed. The central issue in the case was whether the injury Brew suffered was covered under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 or the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The dispute centred on whether the injury was caused by an act or omission in respect of a motor vehicle, which would make it subject to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, or if it was related to Brew's employment, which would make it subject to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The court was required to determine which legislative regime provided the appropriate coverage for Brew's injury.

The court considered the statutory provisions of both the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 to assess the circumstances surrounding Brew's injury. It examined the definitions and scope of each Act to ascertain whether the injury was caused by an act or omission in respect of a motor vehicle. The court also looked at the legislative intent behind each Act and the specific circumstances of Brew's case to determine which Act was more appropriate. The court concluded that the injury was caused by an act or omission in respect of a motor vehicle, and therefore fell under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Brew to pay the costs of the appeal. The reasoning was that the injury sustained by Brew was clearly related to an incident involving a motor vehicle, which fell within the ambit of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The court found no basis to interfere with the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal and upheld their determination that Brew's injury was not covered under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. As a result, Brew's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the costs associated with the appeal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.