Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd - [2011] QSC 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 241

PARTIES:

BRADLEY JOHN HANNAH
(plaintiff)
v
BARELLAN BOBCAT HIRE PTY LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S6431 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 and 19 July 2011

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

The claim is dismissed. I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORT- TRESPASS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where the plaintiff’s claim arises out of an altercation at the workplace – where the defendant is a company, which at the relevant time, engaged in the hiring out of a bobcat and operator – where the plaintiff claims that he was assaulted and suffered injuries as a result of the alternation and seek damages – where the plaintiff pleads that the altercation was occasioned by the negligence and/or breach of duty and/or breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendant – whether the defendant should be liable for damages

TORT- TRESPASS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – QUANTUM –where the plaintiff’s claim arises out of an altercation at the workplace – where the defendant is a company, which at the relevant time, engaged in the hiring out of a bobcat and operater – where the plaintiff claims that he was assaulted and suffered injuries as a result of the alternation and seek damages – where the plaintiff suffered a right thumb injury – where the plaintiff has made a claim for psychiatric injuries - what is the appropriate quantum of damages in the circumstances

COUNSEL:

R W Trotter for the plaintiff

A S Mellick for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Dibbs Barker for the defendant

This claim arises out of an altercation on 8 July 2008 which involved the plaintiff, Derk Houwen and his mother, Karen Houwen. The plaintiff claims that he was assaulted, and that he suffered injuries as a result of the altercation and seeks damages.

The parties

The defendant (Barellan) is a company which, at the relevant time, engaged in the hiring out of a bobcat and operator.

The company had 200 issued shares. Reinder Houwen, the husband of Karen Houwen, held 100 of those shares and Karen Houwen held the other 100. (I will, for convenience, use the given names of the members of the Houwen family when necessary.)

Reinder was the sole director and Karen was the secretary of Barellan. It employed three people, Karen, Derk and the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had commenced employment as a plant operator with Barellan in April 2008.

The plaintiff’s claim

In his amended statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that, on 8 July 2008, he was “involved in [an] incident during the course of his employment”.

He alleges that, at the relevant time he was in the office of Barellan and was being admonished by Karen when Derk arrived at the…

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 Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire 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: [2011] QSC 241
Decision Date: 24 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Hannah, brought an action against the defendant, Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd, seeking damages for injuries sustained during an altercation at a workplace. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a company involved in the hire of a bobcat and its operator, was responsible for the injuries he suffered through negligence, breach of duty, breach of contract, or breach of statutory duty. The central issues before the court were whether the defendant could be held liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff and, if so, the appropriate quantum of damages.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the defendant's liability. It assessed whether the defendant's actions or omissions constituted a breach of duty that led to the altercation and the subsequent injuries. The court also considered the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, including both physical and psychiatric injuries. After careful deliberation, the court found that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as the altercation was not occasioned by the defendant's negligence or breach of duty.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court will hear further submissions from the parties regarding the allocation of costs. The dismissal of the claim means that the defendant will not be held responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims for both physical and psychiatric injuries were rejected by the court, leading to the conclusion that the defendant's liability was not established.

Orders

Orders of the court

The claim is dismissed. I will hear the parties on 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:	Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 241
PARTIES:	BRADLEY JOHN HANNAH (plaintiff) v BARELLAN BOBCAT HIRE PTY LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S6431 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 and 19 July 2011
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	The claim is dismissed. I will hear the parties on costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT- TRESPASS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where the plaintiff’s claim arises out of an altercation at the workplace – where the defendant is a company, which at the relevant time, engaged in the hiring out of a bobcat and operator – where the plaintiff claims that he was assaulted and suffered injuries as a result of the alternation and seek damages – where the plaintiff pleads that the altercation was occasioned by the negligence and/or breach of duty and/or breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendant – whether the defendant should be liable for damages TORT- TRESPASS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – QUANTUM –where the plaintiff’s claim arises out of an altercation at the workplace – where the defendant is a company, which at the relevant time, engaged in the hiring out of a bobcat and operater – where the plaintiff claims that he was assaulted and suffered injuries as a result of the alternation and seek damages – where the plaintiff suffered a right thumb injury – where the plaintiff has made a claim for psychiatric injuries - what is the appropriate quantum of damages in the circumstances
COUNSEL:	R W Trotter for the plaintiff A S Mellick for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Dibbs Barker for the defendant