Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd (No 1)

Case [2005] QCA 263

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd (No 1) [2005] QCA 263

PARTIES:

CELIA CALVERT
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED ACN 004 073 410
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11244 of 2004
SC No 154 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.     Appeal dismissed with the appellant to pay the        respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed on the        standard basis
2.     Cross-appeal dismissed with the respondent to pay        the appellant’s costs of the cross-appeal assessed on        the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE – plaintiff respondent sued defendant appellant for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained in the course of her employment by the appellant – appellant denied that any incident had occurred – appellant submitted that even if it was found to have breached its duty to the respondent this breach did not cause the injury – judge found that an incident had occurred in the manner alleged by the respondent and that the appellant’s breach of duty did cause the injury – whether on the evidence it was open to the judge to make findings consistent with an incident occurring – whether a breach of statutory duty was proved which caused the injury

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES – judge reduced damages quantum for past economic loss by 25 per cent to take contingencies into account – judge reduced damages quantum for future economic loss by 20 per cent on the same basis – whether the discounts applied were excessive – whether judge erred in applying the relevant provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) to future economic loss and past Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 312, s 315, s 317
Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 24, s 26, s 28,
s 37

Brkovic v JO Clough & Son Pty Ltd (1983) 57 ALJR 834, distinguished
Hosking v Pacific Partner Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 484; [2001] 1 Qd R 378, considered
Joynson v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 154; SC No 5850 of 2002, 3 June 2004, considered
Kingshott v Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co Aust Ltd (No 2) (1987) 8 NSWLR 707, considered
Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] AC 107, considered
Rogers v Brambles Australian Limited [1996] QCA 437; [1998] 1 Qd R 212, considered
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] QCA 18; [2001] 1 Qd R 518, considered
Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 304,…

Continue reading Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd (No 1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd (No 1) [2005] QCA 263
Case
[2005] QCA 263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Calvert, brought an action against Mayne Nickless Ltd for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained during her employment. The defendant, Mayne Nickless Ltd, denied liability for the injuries and argued that even if they were found to be at fault, their breach of duty did not cause the injuries. The trial judge found that an incident had occurred as alleged and that the defendant's breach of duty did cause the injury. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the judge's findings of fact were not supported by the evidence and that the damages awarded were excessive. The plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that the judge had not awarded sufficient damages.

The court considered whether the judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and whether the damages awarded were appropriate. The court held that the judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that the judge had applied the relevant provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) correctly. The court also held that the damages awarded were appropriate, taking into account the contingencies and the relevant statutory provisions.

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal, with each party ordered to pay their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. The court held that the judge's findings of fact were open to her on the evidence and that the damages awarded were not excessive. The court found that the judge had applied the relevant statutory provisions correctly and that the damages awarded were appropriate.

The final orders were that the defendant's appeal was dismissed with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal assessed on the standard basis and that the plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed with the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the cross-appeal assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed with the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed on the standard basis

2. Cross-appeal dismissed with the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the cross-appeal assessed on the standard basis

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.