Day v Humphrey

Day v Humphrey is a case involving the plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries and financial losses against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants for alleged negligence, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants, in turn, argued that the plaintiff's claims were subject to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and that she had not complied with the relevant provisions of that Act before bringing her claim. The plaintiff also sought to disqualify the judge on the basis of apprehended bias, alleging that the judge had been involved in extra-judicial activities and had been the subject of complaints to the Crime and Corruption Commission. The court had to determine whether the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applied to the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries, and whether she was bound to comply with the provisions of that Act before commencing a claim against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants. The court also had to decide whether the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation had any prospects of success, and whether the plaintiff's application for disqualification of the judge was well-founded.

The court found that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) applied to the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries, and that she was required to comply with the provisions of that Act before commencing a claim against the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff had not complied with s 275(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), which required her to provide notice of her injury within three months of the injury occurring. The court found that the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation had no prospects of success because it was based on the same factual matrix as her claim for personal injuries, which was subject to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The court also found that the plaintiff's application for disqualification of the judge was not well-founded because there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' standard costs of and incidental to the proceeding. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's applications for disqualification of the judge and ordered that the plaintiff pay costs. The court found that the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants were not entitled to recover any costs from the plaintiff in respect of the appearances on 27 January 2017, 17 May 2017, and 12 July 2017.