Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd - [2022] QDC 1

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 1
PARTIES:	EYLES, James Richard (Plaintiff) v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd ACN 002 690 235 (Defendant)
FILE NO:	BD 1/2019
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bowen
DELIVERED ON:	19 January 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 June 2021
JUDGE:	Devereaux SC CJDC
ORDERS:	I will hear from the parties as to the precise form of orders and as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE –CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – FILING DOCUMENTS AND ACCESS THERETO – where the plaintiff applied for an order pursuant to s 32(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) that the defendant be precluded from using certain documents at any trial of the claim – where the defendant applied for an order that it may rely on the contested documents – whether the defendant was obliged to disclose the documents pursuant to s 27(1)(a) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)
LEGISLATION:	Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 4, s 21, s 22, 27(1)(a), s 30, s 31, s 32(2), s 34, s 37, s 40.
CASES:	Haug v Jupiters Limited [2008] 1 Qd R 276. Livesay v Hawkins [2010] QSC 489. Luck v Lusty EMS Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 146. Newson v Aust Scan Pty Ltd t/a Ikea Springwood & Ors [2010] QSC 223. SDA v Corporation of the Synod of Diocese of Rockhampton & Anor [2020] QSC 253.
COUNSEL:	P. T. Cullinane QC for the plaintiff S.J. Deaves for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors, Mackay for the plaintiff Lander & Rogers for the defendant

The claim

The plaintiff suffered fractures in his right leg when landing during a skydiving course at Bowen on 30 October 2016. In December 2016, he gave a Notice of Claim to the defendant. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the plaintiff’s legal representatives wrote to the defendant’s representatives raising the defendant’s duty of disclosure. The parties participated in a compulsory conference in November 2018, without resolution.
On 7 January 2019, the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim against the defendant in the District Court at Bowen, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The defendant filed a Defence on 15 February 2019 and, on 19 February 2019, served its list of documents. The defendant amended its defence in April 2019 and the plaintiff filed a reply in May 2019.
These applications
Certain documents in the defendant’s list had not been disclosed before the compulsory conference. By his amended application,[1] the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant be precluded from using, at trial, documents 25 to 39 of that list. By its application,[2] the defendant seeks orders that it may rely on any documents referenced in the list served on 19 February 2019 and the Parachuting Contract disclosed on 25 March 2019. The issues have been reduced by the parties. The plaintiff concedes that it did not make a request for…

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 Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty 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: [2022] QDC 1
Decision Date: 19 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Eyles, and the defendant, Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd, regarding the admissibility of certain documents in an upcoming trial. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland, focusing on procedural issues under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The plaintiff sought an order under section 32(2) of the Act to prevent the defendant from using specified documents at the trial, while the defendant sought permission to rely on these documents. The court's task was to determine whether the defendant was required to disclose these documents under section 27(1)(a) of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant was legally obliged to disclose the contested documents to the plaintiff. The court examined the scope of section 27(1)(a) of the Act, which mandates the disclosure of all documents in a party’s possession, custody, or power that relate to any matter in issue in the proceeding. The court considered whether the documents in question fell within this definition, and if so, whether the defendant's failure to disclose them constituted a breach of the statutory obligations. Additionally, the court had to balance the rights of the parties under the Act with the principles of fairness and justice in civil proceedings.

In its decision, the court found that the contested documents did indeed fall within the scope of section 27(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the defendant was required to disclose these documents to the plaintiff. The court emphasised that the duty of disclosure is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial and upholding the integrity of the legal process. The court ruled that the defendant's failure to disclose the documents was a material breach of the statutory obligations. The court also noted that the documents were crucial to the plaintiff's case and had not been disclosed inadvertently or without fault. The court’s decision underscored the importance of compliance with disclosure requirements in personal injury proceedings. The court left the formulation of specific orders and the allocation of costs to a subsequent hearing, inviting submissions from both parties on these matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

I will hear from the parties as to the precise form of orders and 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.