Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd - [2024] QDC 118

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 118

PARTIES:

ROBERT DAVID GAIRNS
(plaintiff)

v

PRO MUSIC PTY LTD
(ABN 15 007 958 617)
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BD 2982/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 and 28 May and 31 July 2024 (written submissions provided by the defendant on 5 and 11 June 2024 and the plaintiff on 10 June 2024)

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $395,767

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLY FORESEEABILTY OF INJURY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a supervisor of internal sales – where the plaintiff claims damages for a psychiatric injury suffered following a meeting with the managing director during which he was demoted – where the defendant was aware that the plaintiff could become easily stressed and anxious – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff the alleged duty of care – whether the risk of the plaintiff sustaining a recognisable psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable – whether the defendant took appropriate precautions to prevent such an injury from occurring – whether the plaintiff has proved that but for the defendant’s breaches the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury would not have occurred

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the parties are in dispute as to the appropriate ISV

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the plaintiff was a long-term employee of the defendant – what the plaintiff’s likely employment would have been had he not been injured

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44

Bevan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349
Downe v West Area Health Service (No. 2) (2008) 71 NSWLR 633
Eaton v TriCare (County) Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 139
Govier v Uniting Church In Australia Property Trust (Q) [2017] QCA 12
Hayes v State of Queensland [2017] 1 Qd R 337
Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 64
Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44

Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274

March v E & MH Stramere Pty Ltd (1999) 171 CLR 506
Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 315
Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu (2007) 71 NSWLR 471
New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCA 235

Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569

Potter v Gympie Regional Council [2022] QCA 255

Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329

Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426
Robertson v State of Queensland & Anor [2021] QCA 92
Robinson v State…

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 Gairns v Pro Music 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: [2024] QDC 118
Decision Date: 2 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Gairns, the plaintiff, sought damages from Pro Music Pty Ltd, the defendant, for psychiatric injuries he claimed to have suffered due to being demoted by the managing director during a meeting. The central issue was whether the defendant owed Gairns a duty of care, which was reasonably foreseeable that he could suffer a psychiatric injury, and whether the defendant took appropriate precautions to prevent such injury. The court had to determine if Pro Music Pty Ltd was aware of Gairns' predisposition to stress and anxiety, and whether they should have reasonably foreseen the risk of a psychiatric injury occurring as a result of the demotion.

The court considered established principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of the injury and the relationship between the employer and employee. It was held that Pro Music Pty Ltd had knowledge of Gairns' vulnerability to stress and anxiety and should have reasonably foreseen the risk of a psychiatric injury arising from the demotion. The court found that the defendant did not take adequate steps to prevent such an injury, thereby breaching the duty of care owed to Gairns. Consequently, the court ruled that Gairns' psychiatric injury was a direct result of the defendant's breaches.

In terms of damages, the court determined that Gairns was entitled to general damages for his psychiatric injury. The court also considered the appropriate income support value (ISV) for calculating the damages. Given Gairns' long-term employment with the defendant, the court assessed what his likely employment situation would have been had he not been injured. The court ultimately awarded Gairns $395,767 in damages, representing both general damages and loss of earning capacity.

Orders

Orders of the court

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $395,767

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:	Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 118
PARTIES:	ROBERT DAVID GAIRNS (plaintiff) v PRO MUSIC PTY LTD (ABN 15 007 958 617) (defendant)
FILE NO:	BD 2982/22
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	2 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 and 28 May and 31 July 2024 (written submissions provided by the defendant on 5 and 11 June 2024 and the plaintiff on 10 June 2024)
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:	JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $395,767
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLY FORESEEABILTY OF INJURY – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a supervisor of internal sales – where the plaintiff claims damages for a psychiatric injury suffered following a meeting with the managing director during which he was demoted – where the defendant was aware that the plaintiff could become easily stressed and anxious – whether the defendant owed the plaintiff the alleged duty of care – whether the risk of the plaintiff sustaining a recognisable psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable – whether the defendant took appropriate precautions to prevent such an injury from occurring – whether the plaintiff has proved that but for the defendant’s breaches the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury would not have occurred DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the parties are in dispute as to the appropriate ISV DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the plaintiff was a long-term employee of the defendant – what the plaintiff’s likely employment would have been had he not been injured Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld) Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44 Bevan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349 Downe v West Area Health Service (No. 2) (2008) 71 NSWLR 633 Eaton v TriCare (County) Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 139 Govier v Uniting Church In Australia Property Trust (Q) [2017] QCA 12 Hayes v State of Queensland [2017] 1 Qd R 337 Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 64 Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44 Little v McCarthy & Anor [2014] QSC 274 March v E & MH Stramere Pty Ltd (1999) 171 CLR 506 Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 315 Meechan v Savco Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 264 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu (2007) 71 NSWLR 471 New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCA 235 Paul & Anor v Rendell (1981) 35 ALR 569 Potter v Gympie Regional Council [2022] QCA 255 Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329 Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426 Robertson v State of Queensland & Anor [2021] QCA 92 Robinson v State…