Catlin v. QX Australia P/L - [2006] QSC 417

[2006] QSC 417

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ROBIN A/J

No 1560 of 2006

RICHARD HENRY CATLIN

Plaintiff

and

QX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 074 725 956)

and

ORGANISERS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
(ACN 010 793 585)

and

PIEROTH PTY LTD (ACN 000 978 352)

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/11/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 157 - where plaintiff tripped on a carpet tile protruding above the adjacent tile - defendant had the general management of a Home Show at Brisbane Exhibition Ground - issue whether it took reasonable precautions - plaintiff ordered to give particulars of what precautions he alleged should have been taken, to guard against "surprise" at trial.

HIS HONOUR: This is the second defendant's application for further and better particulars of the statement of claim. It was the organiser of a "Home Show" held at the Exhibition Grounds in Brisbane. It engaged the first defendant to lay a floor of carpet tiles in one of the display areas where the plaintiff in the course of his employment with the third defendant suffered injury when he fell. His case is that the fall happened because one carpet tile "protruded" over its neighbour. The explanation for that protrusion, as I understand things, is that the size of the tile was greater than the size of the space it was to go in. The obvious solution to the difficulty would appear to be to have the tile trimmed so that it would fit. However, the debate so far has referred to other things that might have been done such as gluing or stapling at appropriate intervals. It is not clear that inadequacy of the space was the only factor in the protrusion.

The first paragraph of which further and better particulars are sought is:

"12. Further during the Brisbane Home Show there existed a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and each of the first, second and third defendants whereby each defendant owed to the plaintiff the duties imposed or implied by law that each defendant would:

(a) Take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff whilst the plaintiff was working on or working at store number 31."

The request for particulars asked "what reasonable precautions the plaintiff alleges the second defendant had a duty to take for the safety of the plaintiff" and elicited this response:

"In relation to paragraph 12(a) of the statement of claim the reasonable precautions of the second defendant had a duty to take for the safety of the plaintiff whilst the plaintiff was on or working at store number 31 were any precautions which would have prevented the section of carpet tile from protruding above its adjoining carpet tile or which would have reasonably brought to the plaintiff's attention the presence of the protruding section of carpet tile."

Mr Forde, for the second defendant/applicant draws attention to the expression "any precautions" which he says is totally uninformative. He says his client has no complete idea…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Catlin v. QX Australia P/L and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QSC 417
Decision Date: 10/11/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Catlin v. QX Australia P/L, the plaintiff, Richard Henry Catlin, sought compensation from the defendants for injuries sustained at a home show in Brisbane. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he tripped over a carpet tile that protruded above its neighbor, which was a result of its size being greater than the space it was intended for. The second defendant, Organisors International, had organised the home show and engaged the first defendant to lay the carpet tiles. The issue before the court was whether the second defendant took reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the plaintiff while he was working at the exhibition.

The court examined the particulars requested by the second defendant in the plaintiff's statement of claim. The second defendant argued that the plaintiff's response was too vague and uninformative, stating that it did not have a clear idea of the respects in which it might be said at trial that it failed in its obligations to the plaintiff. The court considered that Rule 157 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules required a pleading to include the particulars necessary to define the issues and prevent surprise at a trial. The court also noted that it was possible to identify specific things which were done or were not done but should have been done in the physical world.

The court held that the second defendant was entitled to require further and better particulars of the plaintiff's claim, as the expressions used in the claim were meaningless. The court ordered the plaintiff to give further and better particulars in accordance with the second defendant's request, limited to further particulars of anything the plaintiff intended to rely on not set out in the enumerated paragraphs of the statement of claim. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the second defendant's costs in any event.

Orders