Constantinou v Ansett Australia Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Constantinou v Ansett Australia Ltd [2004] QSC 419
PARTIES: ARTHUR CONSTANTINOU
(plaintiff)
v
ANSETT AUSTRALIA LTD
(ACN 004 209 410)
(defendant)
FILE NO/S: s228 of 2000
s17 of 2003
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Claim for damages
ORIGINATING COURT: SUPREME COURT
DELIVERED ON: 26 November 2004
DELIVERED AT: TOWNSVILLE
HEARING DATE: 8-10 November 2004
JUDGES: CULLINANE J
ORDER: Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $395,450.40
CATCHWORDS:

MASTER AND SERVANT — SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK — PERSONAL INJURIES — NEGLIGENCE — BREACH OF DUTY — BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY — BREACH OF CONTRACT — DAMAGES —CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — where plaintiff employee fell down open hatch of vessel — whether risk of injury foreseeable — whether defendant owed duty of care to provide a safe system of work — whether plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout so as to avoid injury —  whether damages can be reduced for contributory negligence in contract after Astley under s. 312 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996

DAMAGES — MEASURE OF DAMAGES — PAIN AND SUFFERING — QUANTUM — LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY — whether plaintiff continues to suffer spinal problems and psychiatric problems as a result of the accident — whether plaintiff is malingering — whether there is a loss of earning capacity

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Law Reform (Joint Tort Feasors Contribution, Contributory Negligence and Division of Chattels) Act 1952 (Qld)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld)
Work Place Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld)

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1998-99) 197 CLR 1
Campbell v CSR Limited & Anor [2002] QSC 266
Martin v Mackay City Council [2001] QSC 433
Rogers v Brambles Ltd (1998) 1 Qd.R 212
Tabulo v Bowen Shire Council [2004] QSC 38
Wylie v ANI Corporation Ltd (2002) 1 Qd.R 320 at 336

COUNSEL: Mr M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff
Mr S Williams QC together with Mr M O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Bennett & Philp Solicitors for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant
  1. The plaintiff sues in respect of personal injuries suffered by him on 9th December 1997. 

  1. There is an issue as to both liability and the quantum of damages.

  1. The circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the incident were dealt with relatively briefly in the evidence, the plaintiff giving the only relevant evidence on the subject.

  1. The plaintiff was employed as a concierge/porter and early on that morning went on to a vessel “The Reef Goddess” owned by the defendant for the purposes of travelling from Hayman Island to the mainland (Shute Harbour) to meet guests who were arriving and were to be transported to the island.

  1. The vessel was moored at a marina.  The plaintiff entered the vessel at the rear and proceeded towards the front cabin.  After he went on to the vessel he saw a deckhand, one Azzopardi who was washing the outside of the vessel.  The plaintiff’s evidence was that the skipper also was on the vessel at that time although he…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Constantinou v Ansett Australia Ltd 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
[2004] QSC 419
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr. Constantinou, brought an action against his employer, Ansett Australia Ltd, after suffering injuries when he fell down an open hatch on a vessel while employed as a baggage handler. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff claimed that his employer breached its duty of care to provide a safe system of work, failed to keep a proper lookout, and breached its statutory duty under the Workcover Queensland Act 1996. The employer, in turn, sought to reduce the damages on the basis of the plaintiff's contributory negligence and argued that any damages should be reduced under section 312 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996. The court was required to determine whether the employer breached its duty of care, whether the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout, and if the damages could be reduced for contributory negligence in contract.

The court held that the risk of injury was foreseeable and that the employer owed a duty of care to provide a safe system of work. The employer failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the open hatch was properly secured, which amounted to a breach of duty. The court also found that the plaintiff did not fail to keep a proper lookout and that his contributory negligence did not absolve the employer of liability. The court further held that damages could be reduced for contributory negligence in contract under section 312 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996. Finally, the court assessed the plaintiff's damages for pain and suffering, psychiatric problems, and loss of earning capacity.

The court found that the plaintiff continued to suffer from spinal and psychiatric problems as a result of the accident and awarded damages for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity. The court rejected the employer's argument that the plaintiff was malingering and held that the employer was liable for the full amount of damages. The court made a final order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $395,450.40.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $395,450.40

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.