Healy v Logan City Council - [2020] QDC 54

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Healy v Logan City Council [2020] QDC 54

PARTIES:

MICHELLE MAREE HEALY
(plaintiff)

v

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

143/16

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19 and 20 March 2019

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

1.     The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2.     If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 30 April 2020.

3.     If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i)      the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 7 May 2020;

(ii)     the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 14 May 2020; and

(iii)   the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Monday, 18 May 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff employed by defendant as cleaner at indoor sports centre – where plaintiff fell off row of seating in grandstand and suffered injury to left shoulder – where allegations by plaintiff included unsafe system of work, failure to give adequate instructions or training and failure to undertake risk assessment – where quantum in issue – whether defendant breached its duty of care – whether injury the cause of plaintiff ceasing work

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 19, s 21
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 130, sch 8, 9, 12

Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672, cited
Mendarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319, cited
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316, cited

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, cited

COUNSEL:

G.J Cross for the plaintiff
W.D.P Campbell for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Patinos Lawyers for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant

The plaintiff, Ms Healy, was employed by the defendant, Logan City Council (the Council), as a casual cleaner to work at Logan Metro Indoor Sports Centre (the Centre).

Ms Healy says that on 9 June 2013, in the course of her employment, she was performing cleaning duties of a grandstand at the Centre and that in the course of her duties she slipped off the row of seating in the grandstand, thereby suffering personal injuries, loss and other damage.

Both the Council’s liability and, if it is liable, the quantum of any damages recoverable, are in issue. Questions of contributory negligence also arise.

The relevant legislative regime is the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA).

The plaintiff’s pleaded case

By the further amended statement of claim, the incident and consequent loss is alleged to have been caused by…

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 Healy v Logan City Council 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: [2020] QDC 54
Decision Date: 16 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the plaintiff, employed as a cleaner at an indoor sports centre, sought damages for injuries sustained after falling off a row of seating in the grandstand. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Logan City Council, had breached its duty of care through an unsafe system of work, failure to provide adequate instructions or training, and failure to undertake a risk assessment. The case was heard and determined in the District Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue was whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff, and if such breach led to the plaintiff ceasing work.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the safety of the seating arrangement and the adequacy of the training and instructions provided to the plaintiff. It was found that the council had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, including providing safety training and ensuring the seating area was properly maintained. The plaintiff's argument that the council had failed to undertake a risk assessment was dismissed as the court found that such assessments were not necessary under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's injury did not directly result in them ceasing work, as they had continued to work in other capacities after the incident.

Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant had not breached its duty of care, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The orders made by the court required the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on costs, and if unsuccessful, to file written submissions within specified timelines. This decision underscores the importance of employers ensuring they have adequate safety measures and training in place, while also highlighting the burden of proof required in negligence claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 30 April 2020.

3. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i) the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 7 May 2020;

(ii) the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 14 May 2020; and

(iii) the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Monday, 18 May 2020.

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:	Healy v Logan City Council [2020] QDC 54
PARTIES:	MICHELLE MAREE HEALY (plaintiff) v LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	143/16
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18, 19 and 20 March 2019
JUDGE:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:	1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed. 2. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 30 April 2020. 3. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs: (i) the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 7 May 2020; (ii) the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 14 May 2020; and (iii) the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Monday, 18 May 2020.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff employed by defendant as cleaner at indoor sports centre – where plaintiff fell off row of seating in grandstand and suffered injury to left shoulder – where allegations by plaintiff included unsafe system of work, failure to give adequate instructions or training and failure to undertake risk assessment – where quantum in issue – whether defendant breached its duty of care – whether injury the cause of plaintiff ceasing work Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 19, s 21 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 305B, s 305C Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 130, sch 8, 9, 12 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672, cited Mendarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319, cited Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316, cited Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, cited
COUNSEL:	G.J Cross for the plaintiff W.D.P Campbell for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Patinos Lawyers for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant