Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland - [2003] QSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QSC 257

PARTIES:

SHANE WILLIAM HARRY HOPKINS
(plaintiff)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(defendant)

FILE NO:

Maryborough S2 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

14 August 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18-19 June 2003

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

The defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of $419,834.44

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – where plaintiff sustained back injury - where plaintiff established a prima facie case that his lower back injury was caused by incidents for which the defendant accepted liability - where evidence that the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition pre-dating incidents - evidential onus on defendant to show that the plaintiff’s incapacity was wholly or partly the result of the plaintiff’s pre-existing spinal condition - onus not discharged

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff
JB Rolls for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

McDuff & Daniel for the plaintiff
Bell Dixon Butler for the defendant

MULLINS J: This proceeding is brought by the plaintiff, Mr Shane Hopkins, against WorkCover Queensland as the defendant pursuant to s 306(2)(b) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“WQA”), as the plaintiff’s employer at the respective times when he was injured, Aceford Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“the employer”) was wound up in or about July 2000. The plaintiff claims to have suffered a significant low back injury during 3 separate incidents in February 1998, March 2000 and May 2000, as a result of the negligence and/or breach of duty and/or breach of contract of employment and/or breach of statutory duty of the employer. The defendant concedes that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his low back, as a result of one or more of the incidents which are the subject of this proceeding, but the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the consequence of the injuries for the plaintiff are in issue.

The plaintiff’s history

The plaintiff was born on 5 February 1959. He was brought up around Dalby and left school when he was 15 years old. He worked on farms for a few years, horse studs and at a foundry. He worked as a tyre fitter in Dalby for about two years, commencing in 1990. After then working at Eromanga for about a year, he returned to Dalby and worked as a tyre fitter for Whimps Tyre & Mechanical. He became manager of that business. His family ended up buying the business and it commenced to trade as “Dalby Tyre Supplies” but in 1995 the business was sold. The plaintiff relocated to Hervey Bay with his partner Ms Cordner and obtained employment with the employer which traded as Beaurepaires for Tyres as a tyre fitter in December 1996.

Whilst working for the employer, the plaintiff was promoted to…

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 Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland 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: [2003] QSC 257
Decision Date: 14 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in incidents for which the defendant accepted liability. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a lower back injury caused by these incidents. The dispute centred on the measure and remoteness of damages, specifically whether the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative spinal condition contributed to his incapacity. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which the plaintiff's incapacity was a result of his pre-existing condition and whether the plaintiff had discharged the evidential onus to prove his case.

The court examined whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case that his lower back injury was caused by the incidents for which the defendant accepted liability. It was evident that the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition. The court considered whether the defendant had discharged the onus of proving that the plaintiff's incapacity was wholly or partly the result of his pre-existing condition. The court concluded that the defendant had not discharged this onus, and therefore, the plaintiff's incapacity was attributable to the incidents for which the defendant accepted liability.

In determining the appropriate amount of damages, the court assessed the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's injury and its impact on his life. The court found that the plaintiff had suffered significant incapacity due to his injuries and awarded him damages in the amount of $419,834.44. The defendant was ordered to pay this sum to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of $419,834.44

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:	Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QSC 257
PARTIES:	SHANE WILLIAM HARRY HOPKINS (plaintiff) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (defendant)
FILE NO:	Maryborough S2 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	14 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18-19 June 2003
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	The defendant pay to the plaintiff the amount of $419,834.44
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – where plaintiff sustained back injury - where plaintiff established a prima facie case that his lower back injury was caused by incidents for which the defendant accepted liability - where evidence that the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition pre-dating incidents - evidential onus on defendant to show that the plaintiff’s incapacity was wholly or partly the result of the plaintiff’s pre-existing spinal condition - onus not discharged WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff JB Rolls for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	McDuff & Daniel for the plaintiff Bell Dixon Butler for the defendant