Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd - [2020] QMC 9

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd [2020] QMC 9

PARTIES:

DAVID FLETCHER

(complainant)

v

DEMAG CRANES AND COMPONENTS PTY LTD

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00131582/149(5)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Complaint - Application for costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2019

MAGISTRATE:

Magistrate C Press

ORDER:

1. The complaint is dismissed.

2. The complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $724,183.05.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Workplace Health and Safety Complaint

COSTS – upon dismissal – quantum of costs – special difficulty, complexity or importance – Solicitor’s costs, Counsels’ fees, Expert’s fees and disbursements

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 158 (1), 158A (1) & (2), 158B

Justices Regulation 2014 Schedule 2

Hickey v Crime and Misconduct Commission (2008) QDC 340

Schloss v Bell, Bell v Schloss (2016) ICQ 017

Bell and Anor v Unimin Australia Pty Ltd (2013) QMC 3

Bell v Townsend and Ors (2014) QMC 30

Hennessey Glass and Aluminium Pty Ltd v Westpac Australia Ltd (2007) QDC 57

COUNSEL:

Mr G Rice QC for the complainant i/b Office of Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (Qld)

Mr S Holt QC for the defendant i/b Harmers Lawyers Sydney

This is an Application by Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd (“the defendant”) for costs under the Justices Act 1886 (“the Justices Act”). It arises out of a prosecution by the Complainant alleging an offence by the Department under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (“the WHS Act”).

On the first day of the trial schedules to commence on 20 May 2019, the Complainant indicated that he would offer no evidence against the Defendant. The complaint will ultimately be dismissed.

The power to award costs by the Magistrates Court in a criminal prosecution is granted and governed by Division 8 of the Justices Act.

Relevant to this application are 158(1), 158A(1) and (2) and 158B of the said division which provides as follows:

158 Costs on Dismissal

(1) When justices instead of convicting or making an order dismiss the complaint, they may by their order of dismissal order that the complainant shall pay to the defendant such costs as to them seem just and reasonable.

(2) When a complaint is before a Magistrates Court which the court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the court shall order the complaint to be struck out for want of jurisdiction and may order that the complainant pay to the defendant such costs as to the court seem just and reasonable.

158A Exercise of discretion in relation to an award of costs

(1) Despite section 158(1), justices who dismiss a complaint may make an order for costs in favour of a defendant against a complainant who is a police officer or public officer if the justices are satisfied that it is proper that the order for costs should be made.

(2) In deciding whether it is proper to make the order for costs,…

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 Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components 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: [2020] QMC 9
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with adjudicating a workplace health and safety complaint brought by Mr Fletcher against his former employer, Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd. The central issue was whether Demag had failed to provide a safe working environment and acted negligently in handling a workplace incident that resulted in Mr Fletcher's injury.

The legal issues before the Commission encompassed the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning health and safety obligations of employers. Additionally, the Commission had to determine whether the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether it warranted an award of costs against Mr Fletcher. The complexity of the case lay in the technical and medical evidence presented, as well as the nuanced interpretation of workplace safety standards.

In dismissing the complaint, the Commission found that Mr Fletcher had not demonstrated that Demag had breached its health and safety obligations. The evidence provided did not substantiate the claims of negligence or unsafe working conditions. Moreover, the Commission determined that the complaint was vexatious and without merit, leading to the conclusion that special costs should be awarded to Demag. The detailed assessment of the evidence, the legal standards applied, and the thoroughness of the Commission's reasoning resulted in an order for Mr Fletcher to pay Demag's costs, amounting to $724,183.05. This sum includes solicitor's costs, counsel's fees, expert's fees, and disbursements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The complaint is dismissed.

2. The complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $724,183.05.

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:	Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd [2020] QMC 9
PARTIES:	DAVID FLETCHER (complainant) v DEMAG CRANES AND COMPONENTS PTY LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00131582/149(5)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Complaint - Application for costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	29 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2019
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate C Press
ORDER:	1. The complaint is dismissed. 2. The complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $724,183.05.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – Workplace Health and Safety Complaint COSTS – upon dismissal – quantum of costs – special difficulty, complexity or importance – Solicitor’s costs, Counsels’ fees, Expert’s fees and disbursements Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 158 (1), 158A (1) & (2), 158B Justices Regulation 2014 Schedule 2 Hickey v Crime and Misconduct Commission (2008) QDC 340 Schloss v Bell, Bell v Schloss (2016) ICQ 017 Bell and Anor v Unimin Australia Pty Ltd (2013) QMC 3 Bell v Townsend and Ors (2014) QMC 30 Hennessey Glass and Aluminium Pty Ltd v Westpac Australia Ltd (2007) QDC 57
COUNSEL:	Mr G Rice QC for the complainant i/b Office of Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (Qld) Mr S Holt QC for the defendant i/b Harmers Lawyers Sydney