SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Day v Woolworths Ltd & Ors [2016] QCA 337
PARTIES:
OLGA DAY
(applicant)
v
WOOLWORTHS 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)FILE NOS:
Appeal No 3950 of 2016
DC No 224 of 2016DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane – [2016] QDC 81DELIVERED ON:
14 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 October 2016
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides JA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether the applicant’s undertaking not to communicate with the directors or employees of the first respondent should be released.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The applicant is released from the undertaking.
4. Otherwise leave to appeal is refused.
5. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – PERSONAL INJURY OR FATAL ACCIDENTS PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the first respondent applied to the District Court to have the date of the compulsory conference set and for an order that the applicant limit her communications with the first respondent to its solicitors – where the applicant applied to the District Court for a range of procedural orders, including as to inspection of the premises and seeking responses to requests for information made under s 27 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“PIPA”) – where the District Court set a date for the compulsory conference, ordered that the first respondent provide particular information requested and otherwise dismissed the applications – where the applicant applied to set aside the orders and to obtain the orders sought by her application to the District Court – where the pre-court procedures under PIPA were concluded at the time of the appeal – whether s 27 of PIPA created a continuing right to ask for information after a court proceeding was started – whether the District Court had power to order an inspection of property before a court proceeding claiming damages was commenced, either under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) or PIPA – whether leave to appeal should be granted
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – UNDERTAKING IN COURSE OF LEGAL PROCEEDING – where the applicant gave an undertaking to the District Court not to communicate with the parties except through their solicitors – whether the undertaking should be released now that the PIPA pre-court processes were concluded and the applicant had started a court proceeding
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 180, s 181, s 1317H, s 1317J
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 14, s 27, s 35, s 36
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 3, r 8, r 250
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 5, s 19,…
Continue reading Day v Woolworths Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Day v Woolworths Ltd [2016] QCA 337
- Case
- [2016] QCA 337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether section 27 of PIPA created a continuing right to ask for information after a court proceeding was started, whether the District Court had the power to order an inspection of property before a court proceeding claiming damages was commenced, either under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) or PIPA, and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The court found that section 27 of PIPA did not create a continuing right to ask for information after a court proceeding was started. The court also found that the District Court did not have the power to order an inspection of property before a court proceeding claiming damages was commenced, either under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) or PIPA. However, the court granted leave to appeal on the question whether the plaintiff's undertaking not to communicate with the directors or employees of Woolworths Ltd should be released.
The court held that the pre-court procedures under PIPA were concluded at the time of the appeal, and the plaintiff had started a court proceeding. Therefore, the undertaking should be released now that the PIPA pre-court processes were concluded and the plaintiff had started a court proceeding. The court allowed the appeal and released the plaintiff from the undertaking. The court refused leave to appeal on the other questions and made no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether the applicant’s undertaking not to communicate with the directors or employees of the first respondent should be released.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The applicant is released from the undertaking.
4. Otherwise leave to appeal is refused.
5. No order as to 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.