Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd - [2001] QCA 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors P/L & Anor [2001] QCA 223

PARTIES: CATHERINE THERESA HAWTHORNE
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
THIESS CONTRACTORS PTY LTD
ACN 010 221 486
(first defendant/first respondent)
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NOS: Appeal No 5605 of 2000
SC No 3399 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General Civil Matter

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 8 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 30 March 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Byrne J

ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND THIRD PARTIES – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE – EFFECT OF CLAIM OR PROCEEDING FOR, OR RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION ON RIGHT TO DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where the appellant claims damages for personal injuries arising out of employment – whether any common law right to damages is extinguished by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 - meaning of damages under section 11(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – whether the appeal against the dismissal of a claim to declaratory relief should be allowed after the appellant instituted damages proceedings in contravention of a prohibition within section 265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – WORKERS' COMPENSATION - "INJURY” – WHAT CONSTITUTES INJURY – meaning of “injury” under section 34(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – whether the injury is a continuation of a pre-existing injury

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN INJURY AND INCAPACITY OR DEATH – GENERALLY – whether employment was a major significant factor in causing the injury

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – CONSIDERATION OF EXTRINSIC MATTERS – LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ACT – Minister's second reading speech – whether the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 was intended to extend to all instances in which a PAYE employee seeks damages from an employer for work-related symptoms

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B(1), s 32A
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 5(2), s 5(4)(a), s 5(6), s 6 (1)(a), s 8, s 11(1), s 12(1), s 13(a), s 28(3)(b), s 34, s 253(10, s 265(1), s 302

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1, considered

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlow [1956] AC 613, considered
Bonser v Melnacis& Anor [2000] QCA 13, CA 4369 of 1999, 8 February, 2000, considered
Chappel v Hart [1998] 195 CLR 232, considered
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390, considered
March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd [1990-1991] 171 CLR 506, explained
Naxakis v Western General Hospital [1999] 73 ALJR 782, considered

COUNSEL: R J Douglas SC with K F Holyoak for the appellant
G K Flint for the first respondent
P A Keane QC with R E Treston for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:
Biggs & Biggs for the appellant
Moray & Agnew for the first respondent

Mullins & Mullins for the second respondent

McMURDO P: I have read the reasons…

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 Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors 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: [2001] QCA 223
Decision Date: 8 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, who sought damages for personal injuries sustained during employment. The respondent, Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd, was the employer. The appellant argued that the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 did not extinguish any common law right to damages. The appellant also sought a declaration that the injury was not a continuation of a pre-existing injury and that employment was a major significant factor in causing the injury. The appeal against the dismissal of a claim to declaratory relief was contested on the grounds that the appellant had instituted damages proceedings in contravention of a prohibition within the Act.

The court examined whether the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 extinguished any common law right to damages, considering the meaning of "damages" under section 11(1) of the Act. The court also assessed whether the injury was a continuation of a pre-existing injury, according to the definition of "injury" under section 34(1) of the Act. Additionally, the court considered whether employment was a major significant factor in causing the injury. The court interpreted the legislative history of the Act, including the Minister's second reading speech, to determine if the Act was intended to extend to all instances where a PAYE employee seeks damages from an employer for work-related symptoms.

The court found that the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 did extinguish any common law right to damages. The court also determined that the injury was a continuation of a pre-existing injury and that employment was not a major significant factor in causing the injury. The appeal against the dismissal of the claim to declaratory relief was dismissed, as the appellant had instituted damages proceedings in contravention of a prohibition within the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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:	Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors P/L & Anor [2001] QCA 223
PARTIES:	CATHERINE THERESA HAWTHORNE (plaintiff/appellant) v THIESS CONTRACTORS PTY LTD ACN 010 221 486 (first defendant/first respondent) WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (second defendant/second respondent)
FILE NOS:	Appeal No 5605 of 2000 SC No 3399 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Matter
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 March 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Byrne J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND THIRD PARTIES – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE – EFFECT OF CLAIM OR PROCEEDING FOR, OR RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION ON RIGHT TO DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where the appellant claims damages for personal injuries arising out of employment – whether any common law right to damages is extinguished by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 - meaning of damages under section 11(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – whether the appeal against the dismissal of a claim to declaratory relief should be allowed after the appellant instituted damages proceedings in contravention of a prohibition within section 265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 WORKERS' COMPENSATION – WORKERS' COMPENSATION - "INJURY” – WHAT CONSTITUTES INJURY – meaning of “injury” under section 34(1) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – whether the injury is a continuation of a pre-existing injury WORKERS' COMPENSATION – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN INJURY AND INCAPACITY OR DEATH – GENERALLY – whether employment was a major significant factor in causing the injury STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – CONSIDERATION OF EXTRINSIC MATTERS – LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ACT – Minister's second reading speech – whether the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 was intended to extend to all instances in which a PAYE employee seeks damages from an employer for work-related symptoms Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B(1), s 32A WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 5(2), s 5(4)(a), s 5(6), s 6 (1)(a), s 8, s 11(1), s 12(1), s 13(a), s 28(3)(b), s 34, s 253(10, s 265(1), s 302 Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1, considered Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlow [1956] AC 613, considered Bonser v Melnacis& Anor [2000] QCA 13, CA 4369 of 1999, 8 February, 2000, considered Chappel v Hart [1998] 195 CLR 232, considered Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390, considered March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd [1990-1991] 171 CLR 506, explained Naxakis v Western General Hospital [1999] 73 ALJR 782, considered
COUNSEL:	R J Douglas SC with K F Holyoak for the appellant G K Flint for the first respondent P A Keane QC with R E Treston for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Biggs & Biggs for the appellant Moray & Agnew for the first respondent Mullins & Mullins for the second respondent