Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd

Case [2024] QCA 132

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 132

PARTIES:

PHILIP NIGEL GREENALL as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late WALTER GREENALL

AUDREY GREENALL a person under a legal disability, by her Litigation Guardian PHILIP NIGEL GREENALL
(first appellant)
v
AMACA PTY LTD (formerly JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD)
(second appellant)
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(first respondent)(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12581 of 2023
SC No 14063 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2023] QSC 137 (Crowley J)

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 March 2024

JUDGES:

Morrison JA and Fraser AJA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   Each party has leave to make submissions about costs, any such submissions to be in writing and lodged within 14 days of publication of the Court’s reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – OTHER CASES – where the deceased was employed by the first respondent and during the course of employment inhaled asbestos fibres – where the deceased was granted an application for compensation from the second respondent – where the deceased commenced a claim for damages for personal injuries against the first respondent – where the primary judge struck out parts of the amended claim and pleading, stated three questions for summary determination before a trial and answered those questions – whether the trial judge erred in striking out the pleading for the wrongful death claim for the benefit of the widow, and finding that the claims made in those paragraphs and that part of the prayer for relief could not be maintained – whether s 237 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) abolished the right of the first appellant to bring a wrongful death claim for benefit of the second appellant in relation to domestic services lost by the widow as a result of the deceased’s death

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 11
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 64, s 67
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 48
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 27, s 32, s 46, 132B, s 207B, s 237, s 239, s 239A

Bonser v Melnacis [2002] 1 Qd R 1; [2000] QCA 13, cited
De Sales v Ingrilli (2002) 212 CLR 338; [2002] HCA 52, cited
Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Ferrari [2005] 2 Qd R 129; [2005] QSC 5, cited
Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 157; [2001] QCA 223, cited
Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 273; [2000] QCA 348, considered
Taylor v Owners - Strata Plan No 11564 (2014) 253 CLR 531; [2014] HCA 9, cited
Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307; [2007] HCA 33, cited

Continue reading Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 132
Case
[2024] QCA 132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a claim by the widow of a deceased person who had been exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment. The deceased, who had inhaled asbestos fibres while working for the first respondent, had been granted compensation from the second respondent. Subsequently, the widow commenced a claim for damages for personal injuries against the first respondent. The primary judge had struck out parts of the amended claim and pleading, posed three questions for summary determination before a trial, and answered those questions. The appellants, the widow and the deceased's estate, appealed against the decision to strike out the pleading for the wrongful death claim for the benefit of the widow, arguing that the primary judge erred in finding that the claims made in those paragraphs and that part of the prayer for relief could not be maintained. The appeal also questioned whether section 237 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) abolished the right of the first appellant to bring a wrongful death claim for the benefit of the second appellant in relation to domestic services lost by the widow as a result of the deceased’s death.

The court examined whether the trial judge was correct in striking out the pleading for the wrongful death claim and in finding that the claims could not be maintained. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and whether they abolished the right to bring such a claim. The court held that the primary judge's decision was correct and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the statutory provisions did not abolish the right to bring a wrongful death claim for domestic services lost by the widow, but the widow had failed to demonstrate a causal link between the deceased's exposure to asbestos and the loss of domestic services. The court also held that the primary judge's findings on the three questions for summary determination were not erroneous.

The appeal was dismissed. Each party was granted leave to make submissions about costs, to be lodged within 14 days of the publication of the court’s reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Each party has leave to make submissions about costs, any such submissions to be in writing and lodged within 14 days of publication of the Court’s reasons.

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.