Collings & Anor v Amaroo (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor - [1997] QCA 224

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 224
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7205 of 1996

Brisbane

[Collings v. W.C.B.]

BETWEEN:

TERRY ROBERT COLLINGS

(First Plaintiff) Appellant
TRACEY LEE COLLINGS
(Second Plaintiff)

AMAROO (QLD.) PTY. LTD. ACN 058 893 940

(Defendant)

AND:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND

(Defendant by Election) Respondent
McPherson J.A.
Davies J.A.
Moynihan J.

Judgment delivered 29 July 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the order made.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:	PERSONAL INJURY - COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT - Service Station Console operator - Robbery - Post traumatic stress - Credibility of appellant - Appellant ignored available security measure.
Counsel:	Mr W. Sofronoff Q.C. for the appellant Mr G. Griffin Q.C., with him, Mr R. Lynch, for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Jensen and Co. for the appellant C.A. Sciacca and Assoc. for the respondent
Hearing Date:	23 May 1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7205 of 1996

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Davies J.A.
Moynihan J.

[Collings v. W.C.B.]

BETWEEN:

TERRY ROBERT COLLINGS

(First Plaintiff) Appellant
TRACEY LEE COLLINGS
(Second Plaintiff)

AMAROO (QLD.) PTY. LTD. ACN 058 893 940

(Defendant)

AND:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND

(Defendant by Election) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 29 July 1997

This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injury alleged

to have been sustained by him in the course of his employment. The plaintiff was working as a console

operator at the BP Service Station at Woodridge on 25 October 1994, when at about 8.50 p.m. he

was robbed at knife point by two men, who entered the shop area with their faces covered and took money. As a result of his experience on that occasion, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered post-

traumatic stress which has rendered him unemployable.

The robbery incident was recorded by a video camera, and the video tape formed part of the

evidence at the trial and on appeal. Basing himself on what can be seen on it and on the plaintiff’s

evidence at the trial, the judge found that, shortly before the incident. the plaintiff was stationed in the

console area. It consists of a raised platform and counter on which the till was situated, and from which

the attendant has a view of the shop and the petrol pumps outside. The plaintiff left the console and

went to re-arrange some of the stock near the entrance door into the front of the shop. The door was

closed but he did not lock it.

It was while he was there that the robbers entered the shop. They menaced him with knives.

One of them remained with him, while the other went to the console area and tried to open the till. It

caused the alarm to go off. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was pushed to the ground and…

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 Collings & Anor v Amaroo (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [1997] QCA 224
Decision Date: 29/07/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Collings & Anor v Amaroo (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor, the Queensland District Court examined a claim for personal injury against an employer. The claimants, Collings and another individual, alleged they suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from an armed robbery that occurred at the service station where they were employed. The respondents, Amaroo (Qld) Pty Ltd and another employer, disputed the claims, arguing that the claimants failed to follow available security measures, thereby contributing to the incident. The court was tasked with determining whether the claimants' injuries were a direct result of their employment and if the employer's negligence contributed to the trauma experienced.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the claimants' PTSD was a foreseeable consequence of their employment and if the employer breached their duty of care by not implementing adequate security measures. The court also had to assess the credibility of the claimants' accounts and determine whether their failure to follow security protocols constituted contributory negligence. The court considered the statutory framework provided by the workers' compensation scheme and the common law principles of duty of care and causation.

In its decision, the court found that the claimants' PTSD was indeed a result of their employment, given the traumatic nature of the robbery. However, the court also held that the claimants' credibility was compromised due to their disregard of available security measures. This failure was seen as a significant factor in the robbery's occurrence and the subsequent trauma. Consequently, the court apportioned liability between the parties, reducing the claimants' compensation accordingly. The final orders reflected this apportionment, with the employer required to pay compensation, adjusted for the claimants' contributory negligence.

Orders