Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2019] QSC 303


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] QSC 303

PARTIES:

ROBIN AARON DANCE

(plaintiff)

v
JEMEAS PTY LTD

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

256 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

22, 23, 24, 25 October 2019; Final submissions received 5 November 2019.

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $620,255.97

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff was injured lifting a sausage roll mix while employed by defendant – where liability and quantum are in dispute – where defendant alleges contributory negligence - where defendant alleges plaintiff provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover regarding the existence of back injury prior to the accident – whether defendant is liable – whether plaintiff was contributory negligent – whether defendant provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 305B, s 305H, s 305F, s 306O, S 306P, s 306J, s 306N

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld)

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 5

McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301

Guirguis Pty Ltd & Anor v Michel's Patisserie System Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QCA 83

AAI Ltd v Marinkovic [2017] 2 Qd R 672

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588

Sharman v Evans (1987) 138 CLR 563

Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485

Mills v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 184

Henderson v Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal [2005] QSC 124

Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270

Hopkins v WorkCover Qld [2004] QCA 155

Nucifora & Another v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338

Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164

COUNSEL:

RM Treston QC and J Sorbello for the plaintiff
R F King-Scott defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morton & Morton for the plaintiff/respondent
Hall & Wilcox for the defendant/applicant

Background

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Dance, is currently 44 years of age having been born on 5 May 1975. Mr Dance is a trade-qualified baker. He suffered injury to his lower back on 1 November 2016 lifting a bowl with quad-mixture weighing approximately 45.2kg. Liability and quantum are in issue.

    Liability - Negligence

  2. Mr Dance received his trade qualification as a baker on 14 May 2010[1]. Mr Dance then worked for approximately 6 months at the Howard Hot Bread Bakery, before working for several months at the Fraser Island Bakery. In June of 2011, Mr Dance first took up employment with the defendant, Jemeas Pty Ltd, who trades under the name ‘Top of the Bay Bakery’. Mr Steven Sarah is a director of that company and was also Mr Dance’s supervisor.

    [1]  See Exhibit 4.

  3. Mr Dance says that when he commenced at…

Continue reading Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] QSC 303
Case
[2019] QSC 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dance v Jemeas Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant, sustaining an injury while lifting a sausage roll mix at work. The dispute centred on whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, the quantum of damages to be awarded, and whether the plaintiff was contributory negligent. Additionally, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover regarding the existence of a back injury prior to the accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, whether the plaintiff was contributory negligent, and whether the defendant had provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover. The court had to determine the extent of the defendant's liability, if any, and assess the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court also needed to consider the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the plaintiff's pre-existing back injury and the defendant's alleged misrepresentations to WorkCover.

In delivering judgment, the court found that the defendant was indeed liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was contributory negligent, holding that the plaintiff had taken reasonable care in performing their duties. The court also found that the defendant had provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover regarding the plaintiff's pre-existing back injury, but this did not affect the defendant's liability for the injuries sustained in the workplace accident. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $620,255.97.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $620,255.97. The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff was not contributory negligent. The court also found that the defendant had provided false and misleading statements to WorkCover, but this did not absolve the defendant of their liability for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the workplace accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $620,255.97

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.