Dwyer v Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd - [2013] QDC 150

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dwyer v Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 150

PARTIES:

Applicant/Plaintiff:                CRAIG ANTHONY DWYER

  AND

Respondent/Defendant:          FRAMEMASTER (QLD) PTY LTD

  (ABN 47 094 677 291)

FILE NO/S:

4554/2011

DIVISION:

CIVIL

PROCEEDING:

APPEAL

ORIGINATING COURT:

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

DELIVERED ON:

05 JULY 2013

DELIVERED AT:

BRISBANE

HEARING DATE:

01 JULY 2013

JUDGE:

KINGHAM DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application is declined.

2.   Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE- WORKPLACE COMPENSATION- WORKCOVER- DUTY TO COOPERATE- Where applicant has made a claim for damages under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where applicant has sought disclosure of files held by WorkCover in relation to claims by another employee for similar injuries – where the request is made under WCRA s279 – where it is common ground that the request does not fall within s279(1) – whether the court should require production of the files pursuant to s279

Angus v Cornelius & Anor [2007] QCA 190
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2004] QCA 325 Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Hill [2004] QCA 202

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45
Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 s279, s301(5), s273

COUNSEL:

G J CROSS for the Applicant

G F CROWE QC for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

PATINO LAWYERS for the Applicant

McCULLOUGH ROBERTSON for the Respondent

This application concerns the scope of the duty to co-operate imposed by s279 of the Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 on parties to a claim for damages for personal injuries.

Mr Dwyer has commenced proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries he sustained on 13 August 2010 when working as a labourer for Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd. Framemaster manufactures laminated beams. The injury occurred when Mr Dwyer was working on a planning machine. He alleges that a piece of wood became jammed in the machine and he pulled it out by hand. In the course of doing so, he says a splinter of wood pierced his glove and his skin causing a wound that later became infected.

He claims the machine he was working on had a history of jamming, that it was a common occurrence for machine operators to get splinters in their hands when they took steps to remove the wood, and that his employer was aware of this. He claims Framemaster failed to fulfil its duty to him by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid a foreseeable risk of harm.

Mr Dwyer seeks disclosure of two files held by WorkCover, which relate to claims made by another employee of Framemaster about injuries sustained in the course of that person’s employment. The information before the court does not establish whether they relate to the machine on which Mr Dwyer was working when he sustained his injuries.

Initially Mr Dwyer’s lawyers sought non-party disclosure from WorkCover who declined to respond, in part, because it asserted party status, having carriage of the matter for the employer under the WCRA (s301(5)).

Mr Dwyer’s lawyers then requested the files relying on the duty to cooperate imposed by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dwyer v Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Dwyer v Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 150
Case: [2013] QDC 150
Decision Date: 05 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Dwyer, sought damages under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The claim arose from injuries sustained during employment. The applicant sought to obtain files from WorkCover regarding similar claims made by another employee. The case was heard by the Queensland District Court, with the primary focus being on the statutory provisions governing disclosure of such files.

The court needed to determine whether the applicant's request for disclosure of WorkCover files was permissible under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Specifically, the issue was whether the request fell within the scope of section 279 of the Act. It was undisputed that the request did not fall within section 279(1), which deals with the disclosure of information for certain specified purposes. The court therefore had to consider whether it should nonetheless compel the production of the files under section 279 of the Act.

The court concluded that the request for disclosure did not fall within the scope of section 279 of the Act. It found that the statutory provisions did not permit the court to require the production of the files in the circumstances of this case. The court emphasised the importance of the statutory framework governing such disclosures and the need to adhere to the legislative intent. Consequently, the application was declined, and costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is declined.

2. Costs are reserved.

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.

CITATION:	Dwyer v Framemaster (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 150
PARTIES:	Applicant/Plaintiff: CRAIG ANTHONY DWYER AND Respondent/Defendant: FRAMEMASTER (QLD) PTY LTD (ABN 47 094 677 291)
FILE NO/S:	4554/2011
DIVISION:	CIVIL
PROCEEDING:	APPEAL
ORIGINATING COURT:	DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
DELIVERED ON:	05 JULY 2013
DELIVERED AT:	BRISBANE
HEARING DATE:	01 JULY 2013
JUDGE:	KINGHAM DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application is declined. 2. Costs are reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	INSURANCE- WORKPLACE COMPENSATION- WORKCOVER- DUTY TO COOPERATE- Where applicant has made a claim for damages under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where applicant has sought disclosure of files held by WorkCover in relation to claims by another employee for similar injuries – where the request is made under WCRA s279 – where it is common ground that the request does not fall within s279(1) – whether the court should require production of the files pursuant to s279 Angus v Cornelius & Anor [2007] QCA 190 Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2004] QCA 325 Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Hill [2004] QCA 202 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 s279, s301(5), s273
COUNSEL:	G J CROSS for the Applicant G F CROWE QC for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	PATINO LAWYERS for the Applicant McCULLOUGH ROBERTSON for the Respondent