Exton v George Weston Foods Ltd - [1998] QSC 214

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
No. 2201 of 1995

Before Justice Wilson

[Exton v George Weston Foods Ltd]

BETWEEN:

CATHY ELIZABETH EXTON

Plaintiff

AND:

GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED (ACN 008 429 632) a
company duly incorporated according to law trading under the
registered firm name or style of The Webster Biscuit

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILSON J.
Delivered the 9th day of October 1998

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL - personal injuries - musculoligamentous fatigue injury - causation - whether cause of action barred by Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s. 11 - quantum

Counsel:R.C. Morton for the plaintiff
C.J. Fitzpatrick for the defendant

Solicitors:Ebsworth & Ebsworth for the plaintiff
Mullins & Mullins for the defendant

Hearing Date: 23 -24 September 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND
No. 2201 of 1995

Before Justice Wilson

[Exton v George Weston Foods Ltd]

BETWEEN:

CATHY ELIZABETH EXTON

Plaintiff

AND:

GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED (ACN 008 429 632) a
company duly incorporated according to law trading under the
registered firm name or style of The Webster Biscuit

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILSON J.
Delivered the 9th day of October 1998

On 15 November 1995 the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, her former employer, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained during the course of her employment. The defendant admits that it did not have a safe system of work, but it denies that its negligence caused the injuries of which the plaintiff complains. Further, it contends that to the extent that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose earlier than three years prior to the issue of the writ, it is barred by s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

The plaintiff was born on 6 March 1959. On 15 March 1982 she commenced work with the defendant as a process worker at its biscuit factory in Kedron, Brisbane. She worked there as a factory hand/packer until 19 February 1987. Then she was promoted to a leading hand/supervisor. She remained in that position until 17 January 1991, when she reverted to being a factory hand/packer. She continued in that role until she ceased work with the defendant on 20 April 1994, her employment formally terminating on 12 August 1994.

The plaintiff was required to perform fast, repetitive work. When she first went to work for the defendant, she was required to take biscuits from a conveyor belt which brought them from the ovens, and place them in a constantly moving machine which took them to a packaging machine. She had no control over the speed at which she had to work, which was ultimately governed by the speed at which the biscuits emerged from the oven. She was required to work also on the cream assorted line. In that job she had to take biscuits from a tray in front of her at about chest level and put the required number of cream assorted biscuits in styrene trays that went along a conveyor belt in front of her, just…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Exton v George Weston Foods Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] QSC 214
Decision Date: 9 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cathy Elizabeth Exton commenced proceedings against George Weston Foods Limited (formerly trading as The Webster Biscuit) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained during her employment as a process worker at the defendant's biscuit factory in Kedron, Brisbane. The defendant admitted that it did not have a safe system of work, but it denied that its negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries and argued that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

The legal issues in the case were whether the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries and, if so, whether the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. The plaintiff argued that she sustained a musculoligamentous fatigue injury due to the repetitive nature of her work at the defendant's factory, and that her symptoms were different from those she had previously experienced from late 1992/early 1993, which was the cause or at least a substantial cause of her problems thereafter. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's cause of action was to any extent barred by s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action was not barred by s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, as her symptoms were different from those she had previously experienced from late 1992/early 1993, which was the cause or at least a substantial cause of her problems thereafter. The court further found that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries, and awarded damages for pain and suffering, loss of the amenities of life, past and future economic loss, past and future care, special damages, and Fox v Wood component.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $144,807.61, plus interest from the date of the writ until the date of judgment, and the costs of the action to be taxed or agreed. The court also directed that the defendant pay the Workers' Compensation Board the sum of $15,127.77, being the amount paid by the Board to the plaintiff.

Orders