Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd - [2010] QDC 396

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 396

PARTIES:

MICHAEL GREENGRASS
(Applicant)

AND

MARGACH BUILDERS PTY LTD
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D1115/10

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 May 2010

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1) The applicant’s application in these proceedings is dismissed.

2) No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – whether applicant completed a compliant notice of claim – where notice of claim was drafted on basis WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 applied - where respondent advised that notice of claim was non-compliant but failed to identify the ways the notice of claim did not comply – where response required written confirmation agreeing to comply with conditions and timeframes under s 276(6) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant did not provide such written confirmation – where limitation period expired without a compliant notice of claim having been delivered – whether notice of claim taken to have been compliant – whether WorkCover waived compliance – whether WorkCover complied with s 278 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and what were the legal consequences thereof – construction of s 302 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – ss 250, 275, 276, 278, 295, 297, 298, 302

WorkCover Queensland Act1996 (Qld) – ss 282, 305, 308,

Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd (2009) QSC 41 – applied

Roberts v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 482 – cited

Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88 – cited

Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244 – considered

McKelvie v Page (1999) 2 Qd R 259 – contrasted

Young v Keong (CA 2202 of 1997, 22 May 1998 unreported) – cited

Horinack v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2000] QCA 441 – considered

Lau v WorkCover Queensland (2000) QSC 271 – considered

COUNSEL:

M. Grant-Taylor SC with him A. Williams for Applicant

R. J. Douglas SC for Respondent

SOLICITORS:

KM Splatt & Associates for Applicant

Spark Helmore for Respondent

[1] The applicant claims to have been injured during the course of his employment with the respondent on 17 November 2006. His claim for damages arising from that incident is governed by the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 (Qld) (“WCRA”).

[2] The application concerns the question of whether the provisions of that Act now preclude the applicant from bringing a claim for damages against his employer.

[3] A statutory claim was lodged with WorkCover Queensland (“WorkCover”) and accepted. A notice of assessment was issued on 13 September 2007 with respect to injuries to his left ankle and hind foot, and left elbow and radius. This entitled him to seek damages having regard to the provisions of s 250 of WCRA.

[4] There was significant delay…

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 Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 396
Case: [2010] QDC 396
Decision Date: 19 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case sought damages from the respondent following an injury sustained at work. The dispute centered on the compliance of the notice of claim with statutory requirements. The matter was before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issues were whether the notice of claim was compliant and if WorkCover had waived the compliance requirements, as well as the construction and implications of section 302 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The tribunal began by examining the statutory framework, particularly sections 275 and 276 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), which detail the requirements for a compliant notice of claim. The applicant had drafted the notice of claim under the assumption that the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) applied. The respondent informed the applicant that the notice was non-compliant but did not specify how it failed to meet the statutory requirements. The tribunal noted that a compliant notice of claim is a prerequisite for the tribunal to have jurisdiction over the applicant's claim for damages. The tribunal found that the applicant did not provide written confirmation agreeing to comply with the conditions and timeframes under section 276(6) of the Act. As a result, the limitation period expired without a compliant notice of claim being delivered.

The tribunal held that the notice of claim was not taken to be compliant, and there was no evidence of WorkCover waiving compliance. The tribunal also concluded that WorkCover had not complied with section 278 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), which pertains to the statutory duty of care. This non-compliance, however, did not affect the tribunal's jurisdiction or the applicant's entitlement to compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Based on these findings, the tribunal dismissed the applicant's application in these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) The applicant’s application in these proceedings is dismissed.

2) No order as to costs.

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:	Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 396
PARTIES:	MICHAEL GREENGRASS (Applicant) AND MARGACH BUILDERS PTY LTD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D1115/10
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	19 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 May 2010
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	1) The applicant’s application in these proceedings is dismissed. 2) No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – whether applicant completed a compliant notice of claim – where notice of claim was drafted on basis WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 applied - where respondent advised that notice of claim was non-compliant but failed to identify the ways the notice of claim did not comply – where response required written confirmation agreeing to comply with conditions and timeframes under s 276(6) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant did not provide such written confirmation – where limitation period expired without a compliant notice of claim having been delivered – whether notice of claim taken to have been compliant – whether WorkCover waived compliance – whether WorkCover complied with s 278 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and what were the legal consequences thereof – construction of s 302 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – ss 250, 275, 276, 278, 295, 297, 298, 302 WorkCover Queensland Act1996 (Qld) – ss 282, 305, 308, Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd (2009) QSC 41 – applied Roberts v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 482 – cited Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88 – cited Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244 – considered McKelvie v Page (1999) 2 Qd R 259 – contrasted Young v Keong (CA 2202 of 1997, 22 May 1998 unreported) – cited Horinack v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2000] QCA 441 – considered Lau v WorkCover Queensland (2000) QSC 271 – considered
COUNSEL:	M. Grant-Taylor SC with him A. Williams for Applicant R. J. Douglas SC for Respondent
SOLICITORS:	KM Splatt & Associates for Applicant Spark Helmore for Respondent