Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs

Case [2025] QCA 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs [2025] QCA 106

PARTIES:

COOTHARINGA NORTH QUEENSLAND
ABN 92 009 656 679
(applicant)
v
DIANE CAMILLE WOLFS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11866 of 2024
DC No 22 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Townsville – [2024] QDC 146 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2025

JUDGES:

Bond JA and Ryan and Cooper JJ

ORDERS:

1.   Grant the applicant an extension of time in which to file its application for leave to appeal.

2.   Grant the applicant leave to appeal.

3.   Allow the appeal against orders 1 and 4 made on 9 August 2024 and set aside each of those orders.

4.   In lieu of order 1, order that paragraphs 30, 30A, 31A and 32 of the second further amended statement of claim be struck out with leave to replead.

5.   In lieu of order 4, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the defendant’s strike out application to be assessed on the standard basis.

6.   The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – EMBARRASSING, TENDENCY TO CAUSE PREJUDICE, SCANDALOUS, UNNECESSARY ETC OR CAUSING DELAY IN PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff was a disability support worker employed by the defendant – where the plaintiff has brought proceedings against the defendant alleging that a client of the defendant opened a car door into the plaintiff’s knee causing her personal injury suffered in the course of her employment – where the defendant contended that the plaintiff had not identified the risk of harm against which she alleges it ought to have taken precautions – where the plaintiff further contended that the plaintiff’s pleading of codes of practice addressing manual handling tasks raised an irrelevant issue because no manual handling task was causally related to the injury alleged by the plaintiff – where the defendant applied to have the plaintiff’s second further amended statement of claim struck out on the basis that it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, has a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, or contains unnecessary allegations – where the primary judge dismissed the defendant’s application – where the defendant appealed the primary judge’s decision to dismiss the defendant’s application – whether the plaintiff’s second amended statement of claim should be struck out in whole or part

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – where, on the hearing of the defendant’s application to strike out the plaintiff’s second amended statement of claim, the primary judge heard a separate application of the plaintiff – where the primary judge dismissed that application and…

Continue reading Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs [2025] QCA 106
Case
[2025] QCA 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs involved a disability support worker, who was an employee of the defendant, suing for injuries sustained when a client opened a car door into her knee during the course of employment. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to identify the risk of harm and that the plaintiff's reference to manual handling codes was irrelevant. The defendant subsequently applied to have the plaintiff's second further amended statement of claim struck out, claiming it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and contained unnecessary allegations. The primary judge dismissed the application, and the defendant appealed this decision. Additionally, the defendant sought to have the costs of a separate application paid by the plaintiff.

The court had to determine whether the second further amended statement of claim should be struck out in whole or in part and whether the defendant was entitled to have the costs of the separate application paid by the plaintiff. The court examined the dismissal of the second application and found that the appeal to the costs order was separate and required leave of the primary judge under the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). As the defendant had not obtained the necessary leave, this part of the appeal could not succeed.

The court found that the primary judge's decision to dismiss the defendant's application to strike out the second further amended statement of claim was correct, but the dismissal of the costs application was not properly appealed. The court allowed the appeal in part, striking out specific paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the strike out application. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the applicant an extension of time in which to file its application for leave to appeal.

2. Grant the applicant leave to appeal.

3. Allow the appeal against orders 1 and 4 made on 9 August 2024 and set aside each of those orders.

4. In lieu of order 1, order that paragraphs 30, 30A, 31A and 32 of the second further amended statement of claim be struck out with leave to replead.

5. In lieu of order 4, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the defendant’s strike out application to be assessed on the standard basis.

6. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to be 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

The challenge to the costs order made on the second application does not arise from the challenge to the decision to dismiss the strike out application. It is, in substance, separate from that appeal. Further, in circumstances where the dismissal of the second application is not challenged, it constitutes an appeal only in relation to costs from an order of the District Court, being order 5 made by the primary judge on 9 August 2024. Such an appeal lies to this Court only by leave of the primary judge or, if the primary judge is not available, another judge of the District Court.[20] As Cootharinga has not obtained the necessary grant of leave, this part of its proposed appeal cannot succeed.[20]District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) s 118B.Conclusion The orders I would make are:1.Grant the applicant an extension of time in which to file its application for leave to appeal.2.Grant the applicant leave to appeal.3.Allow the appeal against orders 1 and 4 made on 9 August 2024 and set aside each of those orders.4.In lieu of order 1, order that paragraphs 30, 30A, 31A and 32 of the second further amended statement of claim be struck out with leave to replead.5.In lieu of order 4, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the defendant’s strike out application to be assessed on the standard basis.6.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.