Day v Woolworths Group Limited

Case [2021] QCA 42

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Day & Anor v Woolworths Group Limited & Ors [2021] QCA 42

PARTIES:

In Appeal No 5386 of 2018:

OLGA DAY
(first appellant)
STEVEN DAY
(second appellant)
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(first respondent/not a party to the appeal)
CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 063 244 824
(second respondent)
RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD
ACN 111 852 129
(third respondent)
ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 000 296 640
(fourth respondent)
ZURICH FINANCIAL SERVICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ACN 008 423 372
(fifth respondent)
ZURICH AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ACN 000 010 195
(sixth respondent)
ZURICH INSURANCE GROUP LIMITED
(seventh respondent)

In Appeal No 13845 of 2018:

OLGA DAY
(appellant)
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(first respondent)
CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 063 244 824
(second respondent)
RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD
ACN 111 852 129
(third respondent)
GABRIELLE ANN FORBES
(fourth respondent)
SIMON CARTER
(fifth respondent)
RICHARD CAMERON MORTON
(sixth respondent)

In Appeal No 1131 of 2019:

OLGA DAY
(appellant)
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(first respondent)
CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 063 244 824
(second respondent)
RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD
ACN 111 852 129
(third respondent)

In Appeal No 5777 of 2019:

OLGA DAY
(applicant)
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(first respondent)
CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 063 244 824
(second respondent)
RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD
ACN 111 852 129
(third respondent)
GEOFFREY WARREN DIEHM
(fourth respondent)
GERARD COLIN O’DRISCOLL
(fifth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5386 of 2018
Appeal No 13845 of 2018
Appeal No 1131 of 2019
Appeal No 5777 of 2019
SC No 6016 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal
Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] 3 Qd R 593 (Douglas J)
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 266 (Davis J)
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 40 (Davis J)
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 93 (Davis J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2020

JUDGES:

Mullins JA and Henry and Williams JJ

ORDERS:

1.   In Appeal No 5386 of 2018:

(a)   appeal dismissed with costs;

(b)  application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs;

(c)   in the event there is no successful appeal of order (a) in Appeal No 13845 of 2018, the injunction ordered 24 April 2018 is by this order discharged on the date the possibility of a successful appeal ends.

2.   In Appeal No 13845 of 2018:

(a)   appeal dismissed with costs;

(b)  application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

3.   In Appeal No 1131 of 2019:

(a)   appeal dismissed with costs;

(b)  application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

4.   In Appeal No 5777 of 2019:

(a)   application for extension of time within which to appeal and for other relief dismissed with costs;

(b)  application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES –…

Continue reading Day v Woolworths Group Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Day v Woolworths Group Limited [2021] QCA 42
Case
[2021] QCA 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Day, a self-represented litigant, appealed against several orders made in the Supreme Court of Victoria, including an injunction restraining her from communicating with certain parties in relation to a personal injury claim. Woolworths Group Limited and others were the respondents. The Court of Appeal considered various issues, including the validity of the injunction, the duration of the injunction, and whether certain findings and orders were justified.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the primary judge erred in failing to consider certain factual inferences and in restraining Day from communicating with the respondents' insurer. The court found that the primary judge did not err in these respects. The Court of Appeal also considered the duration of the injunction, whether the application for a permanent stay should have proceeded, and whether the proceedings should have been discharged. The Court of Appeal found no error in these respects.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the primary judge should have made adverse findings about opposing counsel and solicitors and whether the primary judge should have restrained them from acting. The court found no error in the primary judge's decision not to make such findings or restrain opposing counsel and solicitors. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the hearing should have been before the judge initially listed and whether the application should have been heard by a judge presiding over the self-represented litigant supervised case list. The court found no error in these respects.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the primary judge should have recused himself, disclosed an association as a potential conflict of interest, or been recused because of an apprehension of bias. The court found no error in these respects. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the presiding judge was unfair and acted in a way which would give rise to an apprehension of bias in a fair-minded lay observer, and whether Day was unduly pressured to submit to further medical examination. The court found no error in these respects. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the primary judge should have granted Day's application for an adjournment and whether reasons for the refusal of an adjournment application should have been published. The court found no error in these respects. Finally, the Court of Appeal considered whether the presiding judge should have proceeded to order costs in the absence of Day. The court found no error in this respect.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In Appeal No 5386 of 2018:

(a) appeal dismissed with costs;

(b) application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs;

(c) in the event there is no successful appeal of order (a) in Appeal No 13845 of 2018, the injunction ordered 24 April 2018 is by this order discharged on the date the possibility of a successful appeal ends.

2. In Appeal No 13845 of 2018:

(a) appeal dismissed with costs;

(b) application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

3. In Appeal No 1131 of 2019:

(a) appeal dismissed with costs;

(b) application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

4. In Appeal No 5777 of 2019:

(a) application for extension of time within which to appeal and for other relief dismissed with costs;

(b) application filed 10 November 2020 dismissed with costs.

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.