Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Ferrari - [2005] QSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Glenco Manufacturing P/L v Ferrari & Anor [2005] QSC 005

PARTIES:

GLENCO MANUFACTURING PTY LTD
ACN 101 370 085
(applicant)
v
SAMUEL JOHN FERRARI
(first respondent)
and
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

BS9439/04

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 January 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 December 2004

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application.

Order that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND/OR THIRD PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF - ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER - STATUTORY CONSTRAINT ON ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES – GENERALLY – Whether the common law right to claim damages for personal injury to a “worker” was extinguished by s. 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 in circumstances where WorkCover Queensland found that there was no “injury” under that Act - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s. 6 - Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s. 237

WorkCover QueenslandAct 1996, s. 253
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s. 237
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s. 6

Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 157, applied
United Grocers, Tea and Dairy Produce Employees’ Union of Victoria v Linaker (1916) 22 CLR 176, applied

COUNSEL:

R. J. Douglas SC for the applicant
G. R. Cross for the first respondent
W. D. P. Campbell for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bridge Brideaux Solicitors for the applicant
Colin Patino & Company for the first respondent
Abbott Tout Solicitors for the second respondent

DOUGLAS J: Samuel John Ferrari claims to have been injured at work between about March 2003 and September 2003. He submitted an application for compensation under the WorkCover QueenslandAct 1996 which has since been replaced by the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The parties accept that he was a worker for the purposes of those Acts but WorkCover Queensland has, so far, refused his application for compensation on the basis that his employment was not a significant contributing factor to the injury of which he complains. Mr Ferrari has challenged that finding and a hearing in respect of an appeal by him on that issue is to be heard next year in the Industrial Magistrates Court.

On 5 April 2004 he also served a notice of claim on his employer, the applicant in these proceedings, Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd (“Glenco”), pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. He has done this on the basis that, if he has not suffered an injury as defined by the WorkCover Queensland Act because his employment was not a significant contributing factor to his injury, then he is entitled to bring proceedings against Glenco in reliance on the procedures prescribed in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act.

The problem that he faces in those circumstances stems from the terms of s. 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act abolishing…

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 Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Ferrari 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: [2005] QSC 5
Decision Date: 17 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd, the first respondent, brought proceedings against Ferrari, the second respondent, seeking damages for personal injury sustained by an employee, Mr. Scott, during the course of his employment. The dispute arose from a decision by WorkCover Queensland, which found that Mr. Scott did not suffer an injury under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. This finding precluded the employee from making a claim for compensation under that Act. The matter was before the court to determine whether Mr. Scott’s common law right to claim damages against the employer was extinguished by section 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

The court had to decide if section 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 extinguished the common law right of a worker to claim damages for personal injury against their employer, despite WorkCover Queensland finding no injury under the Act. The court also had to consider the interplay between the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, and the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, specifically whether these statutory provisions precluded Mr. Scott from pursuing a common law action for damages.

The court held that the statutory scheme under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 was exclusive, and the finding by WorkCover Queensland that there was no injury precluded Mr. Scott from pursuing a common law action for damages against his employer. The court noted that section 237 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and section 6 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 reinforced the exclusivity of the statutory compensation regime. The court found that Mr. Scott’s rights were governed exclusively by the statutory scheme and that the common law right to sue for damages was extinguished by the statutory provisions.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application. This decision underscores the importance of the statutory compensation regime in Queensland and the limitations it imposes on common law actions for damages in cases of workplace injury.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application.

Order that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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:	Glenco Manufacturing P/L v Ferrari & Anor [2005] QSC 005
PARTIES:	GLENCO MANUFACTURING PTY LTD ACN 101 370 085 (applicant) v SAMUEL JOHN FERRARI (first respondent) and WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (second respondent)
FILE NO:	BS9439/04
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 January 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 December 2004
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application. Order that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND/OR THIRD PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF - ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER - STATUTORY CONSTRAINT ON ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES – GENERALLY – Whether the common law right to claim damages for personal injury to a “worker” was extinguished by s. 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 in circumstances where WorkCover Queensland found that there was no “injury” under that Act - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s. 6 - Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s. 237 WorkCover QueenslandAct 1996, s. 253 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s. 237 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s. 6 Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 157, applied United Grocers, Tea and Dairy Produce Employees’ Union of Victoria v Linaker (1916) 22 CLR 176, applied
COUNSEL:	R. J. Douglas SC for the applicant G. R. Cross for the first respondent W. D. P. Campbell for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bridge Brideaux Solicitors for the applicant Colin Patino & Company for the first respondent Abbott Tout Solicitors for the second respondent