Day v Woolworths Group Ltd & Ors Day & Anor v Woolworths Group Ltd & Ors Day v Woolworths Group Ltd & Ors Day v Woolworths Group Ltd
[2021] HCASL 160
DAY
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LTD & ORS
DAY & ANOR
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LTD & ORS
DAY
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LTD & ORS
DAY
v
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LTD & ORS
[2021] HCASL 160
B18/2021
B19/2021
B20/2021
B21/2021
The applicant in proceedings B18/2021, B20/2021 and B21/2021, who is also the first applicant in proceeding B19/2021 ("the applicant"), instituted proceedings against, among others, Woolworths Group Ltd, the first respondent in each proceeding, in the Supreme Court of Queensland for personal injuries suffered from an alleged fall on a shallot in a Woolworths supermarket. The personal injuries proceedings have a long history. On 27 November 2017, Douglas J stayed the proceedings until the applicant underwent certain medical examinations in accordance with s 25(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) ("the PIP Act"). The applicant's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland and an application to this Court for special leave to appeal was refused by Bell and Gageler JJ on 12 September 2018.
The applicant continued not to comply with s 25(2) of the PIP Act. On 24 April 2018, Douglas J granted the second and third defendants in the personal injuries proceedings orders restraining the applicant from communicating or causing communication on her behalf in connection with the proceeding with the second and third defendants' insurer and its associated entities ("the No Communications Order"). On 16 November 2018, Davis J permanently stayed the personal injuries proceedings ("the Permanent Stay Order"). On 8 January 2019, Davis J dismissed the applicant's application that his Honour recuse himself ("the Davis J Recusal Order"). On 9 April 2019, Davis J dismissed the applicant's application to restrain named counsel from acting for the first defendant ("the Refusal to Restrain Counsel Order").
The applicant filed appeals in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland against the No Communications Order, the Permanent Stay Order and the Davis J Recusal Order. The applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal the Refusal to Restrain Counsel Order. The Court of Appeal (Mullins JA, Henry and Williams JJ) heard the appeals, the application for an extension of time and various other applications together. Each appeal and application was dismissed.
The applicant and, in proceeding B19/2021, the second applicant now seek special leave to appeal against specific orders of the Court of Appeal: in B18/2021, the dismissal of the appeal against the Permanent Stay Order; in B19/2021, the dismissal of the appeal against the No Communications Order, in B20/2021, the dismissal of the appeal against the Davis J Recusal Order; and in B21/2021, the dismissal of the application for an extension of time to appeal against the Refusal to Restrain Counsel Order.
In each application for special leave to appeal, the applicant has, or applicants have, filed an interlocutory application, supported by affidavits sworn by the applicant, seeking various orders including that the four special leave applications be joined; that named persons be added as further respondents; that certain respondents or proposed respondents disclose information as to whether they have engaged their professional indemnity insurers in relation to the proceedings; and that the applications be listed for oral hearing. Each interlocutory application is refused. The four applications for special leave have been considered and are appropriate to be determined on the papers. The balance of the matters raised do not warrant the consideration of this Court.
B18/2021 – Permanent Stay
The special leave application does not raise any question of principle. The decision of the Court of Appeal is plainly right. Special leave should be refused.
B19/2021 – No Communications
The principles for granting an injunction are well settled and were not in issue in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant's contentions that she had demonstrated error in the trial judge's exercise of his discretion to grant the orders. An appeal to this Court has no prospects of success. Special leave should be refused.
B20/2021 – Davis J Recusal
The special leave application does not raise any question of principle. It is diffuse and seeks to raise matters not considered by the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal is plainly right. Special leave should be refused.
B21/2021 – Refusal to Extend Time to Appeal Against Refusal to Restrain Counsel
The application is diffuse and seeks to raise matters not considered by the Court of Appeal. The principles governing applications for extension of time within which to appeal as well as the principles governing restraining legal practitioners from acting are not in doubt. The refusal to extend time is not attended by any doubt. Special leave should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the interlocutory applications and the applications.
M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward 2 September 2021
0
0