Farrell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [1998] QCA 18

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 018
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 5616 of 1997.

Brisbane

[Farrell v. Qld Newspapers P/L]

BETWEEN:

WAYNE LAWRENCE FARRELL

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
A.C.N. 009 661 778

(Defendant) Respondent

___________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. Byrne J.

___________________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 27 February 1998

Judgment of the Court

___________________________________________________________________________

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS
___________________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: Civil - personal injuries - appellant employee of respondent - where appellant unable to convince primary judge that he remembered sustaining injury on a particular occasion - where documents threw doubt on appellant’s version of how injury occurred - whether medical evidence consistent with appellant’s version of how injury occurred.

Counsel:	Mr P R Dutney Q.C. with him Mr S Di Carlo for the appellant. Mr P A Keane Q.C. with him Mr R A I Myers for the respondent
Solicitors:	Baker Johnson Lawyers for the appellant Thynne and McCartney for the respondent
Hearing date:	20 February 1998.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 5616 of 1997.

Brisbane

Before Pincus J.A. Davies J.A. Byrne J.

[Farrell v. Qld Newspapers P/L]

BETWEEN:

WAYNE LAWRENCE FARRELL

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
A.C.N. 009 661 778

(Defendant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 27 February 1998

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a claim for damages for

personal injuries. The appellant gave evidence that, while working as an employee of the respondent,

he was required to move a very heavy steel trolley stacked with newspapers. The statement of claim

said:

"The [appellant] was required to position himself at the front end of the said stacked steel trolley in order to pull same whilst his fellow employee was required to push the said stacked steel table from the rear."

The appellant set out to prove that during this process he suffered a serious injury, mainly to his cervical

spine. The judge assessed damages, while dismissing the claim, at about $400,000.

The appellant lost his case because he was unable to convince the primary judge, who regarded

him as an unreliable witness, that he remembered sustaining injury on a particular occasion, or that he

was injured while pulling a table. The appellant was able to adduce only his own evidence to prove that

he was injured as alleged; no-one was called to say they saw this happen. And there were some

documents which were written shortly after the relevant date which tended to throw doubt on his

version.

The appellant’s case was that he was injured during a night shift which began at 4 pm on Friday

21 February 1992. The respondent employer’s record of accidents and illnesses relating to the

appellant did not record any accident as having happened during that shift, but showed that on 22

February 1992 at 8.30 pm there was a complaint of tense muscles and right neck pain…

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 Farrell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Farrell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1998] QCA 18
Case: [1998] QCA 18
Decision Date: 27/02/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne Lawrence Farrell, the appellant, brought an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court which dismissed his claim for damages for personal injuries. The respondent, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, was the appellant's employer at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant claimed that he sustained a serious injury to his cervical spine while working as an employee of the respondent, specifically when he was required to move a heavy steel trolley stacked with newspapers. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, assessing the damages at approximately $400,000.

The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had successfully demonstrated that he remembered sustaining the injury on a particular occasion and that the injury occurred while pulling a table, as opposed to lifting. The appellant was unable to convince the primary judge that his version of events was reliable, and the contemporaneous documents cast doubt on his account of the incident. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the appellant's appeal provided sufficient grounds for overturning the primary judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's appeal did not provide a basis for overturning the primary judge's decision. The appellant's evidence was not deemed reliable, and the medical evidence presented did not conclusively support the appellant's account of the incident. The Court of Appeal held that no ground had been shown on which they could properly reverse the judge's conclusion and find that the appellant was injured in the way he described in evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders