Legal Research
Cases
Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo

Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo

Case [2024] QSC 60 22 April 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo [2024] QSC 60

PARTIES:

AARON PHILLIP CAREY-SCHOFIELD

(plaintiff)

v
HAYS SPECIALIST RECRUITMENT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ABN 47 001 407 281)

(first defendant)

CIVEO PTY LTD (ABN 53 003 657 510)
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1014/21

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

11, 12, 13, 21 March 2024

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff suffered a workplace injury while employed by the first defendant and labour hired to the second defendant – where liability for injuries is disputed – where quantum of damage is disputed – whether the defendants are liable in negligence

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff has returned to work since the date of injury – where the plaintiff has in the past had long periods of sporadic employment – where the plaintiff cannot undertake heavy physical work – what measure of damages for past and future economic loss and Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages – how should the damages be apportioned between defendants

Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6, s 7
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305D, s 306J, s 306M, s 306N

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld), sch 9

Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 38
Cains v Mathers Shoes Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 193
Evans v Port of Brisbane Authority (1992) ATR 81-169
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270
Higgins v William Inglis & Sons Pty Ltd (1978) 1 NSWLR 649
Hughes v Grogan & Anor [2007] QSC 046
James Thane Pty Ltd v Conrad International Hotels Corporation & Ors [1999] QCA 516
Market Form Managing Agency Ltd v Ashcroft Supa IGA Orange Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 36
McLean v Tedman & Brambles Holdings Ltd [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd & Anor v GEJ Geldard Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 315
Mott v Bogan [1999] QSC 216
Paskins v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] 2 Qd R 518; [2017] QSC 213
Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371
Robinson v Fig Tree Pocket Equestrian Club Inc& Ors [2005] QCA 271
Shaw v Menzies & Anor [2011] QCA 197
Tapp v Australian Bushmen's Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited [2022] HCA 11
Thomson v State of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2019] QSC 115

TNT Australia Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1

COUNSEL:

P T Cullinane KC and M E Holmes for the plaintiff
S J Deaves KC and M Rothery for the first defendant

G C O’Driscoll for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
DWF Australia for the first defendant

Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the second defendant

Introduction

On 24 February 2019 the plaintiff,…

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 Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo

Details

AGLC: Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo [2024] QSC 60
Case: [2024] QSC 60
Decision Date: 22 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo involved a claim for damages arising from a workplace injury sustained by the plaintiff, Carey-Schofield, while employed by the first defendant, Hays, with the plaintiff's labour hired to the second defendant, Civeo. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in causing his injury and subsequently suffered both economic and non-economic damages. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether that duty was breached, and if so, whether the defendants were liable for the damages claimed.

The court considered the principles of negligence, examining whether a duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the defendants. It was established that Hays, as the employer, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and Civeo, as the hiring entity, also owed a duty of care as an occupier of the premises. The court then assessed whether this duty was breached and if such a breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. It was determined that both defendants failed to provide adequate safety measures, leading to the plaintiff's harm.

The assessment of damages for past and future economic loss was a significant aspect of the case. Given the plaintiff's history of sporadic employment and his inability to undertake heavy physical work, the court applied the principles set out in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer to determine the appropriate measure of damages. The court apportioned liability between the defendants based on their respective contributions to the breach of duty, awarding damages accordingly. The final orders included a determination of liability and apportionment of damages between Hays and Civeo, ensuring that the plaintiff received compensation for both economic and non-economic losses.

Orders