Jackel v Sita Queensland Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jackel v. Sita Queensland Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 041
PARTIES: BARRIE JOHN JACKEL (Plaintiff)
v.
SITA QUEENSLAND PTY LTD (Defendant)
&
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (Third Party)
FILE NO/S: D348 of 1999
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON: 9 March 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 25 February 2000
JUDGE: McGill DCJ
ORDER: [Terms To Be Decided After Further Submissions]
CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury of employee – liability of employer – requirement for certificate before action – whether offer – whether waiver – whether estoppel – Workers' Compensation Act 1990 s.182D.
Neuss v. Roche Bros Pty Ltd [1999] QDC 249 – followed
Bonser v. Melnacis [2000] QCA 13 – distinguished
Young v. Keong [1999] 2 Qd.R. 335 - applied
Coombs v. Queensland Cotton Corp Ltd (No. S.5214/99, Helman J, 14.10.99);
Herrmann v. Buzza (Plaint 4561/97, Wylie DCJ, 12.6.98); Ireland v. Civilcon (Queensland) Pty Ltd (No. D3835/99, Samios DCJ, 14.2.00)
Hibberd v. South Blackwater Coal Ltd (Rockhampton Writ 47/97, Demack J, 28.8.98).
Mears v. Coles Myer Ltd (Writ 99/99, 18.8.99)
Commonwealth of Australia v. Hamilton (1992) 2 Qd.R. 257 at 267
Barilla v. James (1964) 81 NW (Pt.1)(NSW) 457 at 461, 468, 478.
Beckford Nominees Pty Ltd v. Shell Co of Aust Ltd (1986) 73 ALR 373
Day Ford Pty Ltd v. Sciacca (1990) 2 Qd.R. 209 at 216-7.
Wilson v. Wilson’s Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328 at 335

COUNSEL: M.J. Hogan for plaintiff
K.F. Holyoak for defendant
SOLICITORS: Attwood Marshall for plaintiff
Hopgood Ganim for defendants

  1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant to strike out parts of the plaint.  By a plaint filed on 15 April 1999 the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in respect to injuries alleged to have been suffered by him in the course of his employment with the defendant.  It was alleged that on 7 May 1996 the plaintiff while in the course of his employment slipped on a greasy surface of a loading bay thereby injuring himself.  In para. 5 of the plaint it was alleged that as a result of the negligence and/or breach of contract and/or breach of duty of the defendant, the plaintiff has sustained:

“(a)      Personal Injuries

Particulars of Personal Injuries:

(i)         injury to L5/S1 vertebrae,

(ii)       pain down the right leg;

(iii)      pain in right buttock area, right hamstring area and right calf area;

(iv)       psychological injury.”

Paragraph 5 went on to allege that the plaintiff has also sustained pain, suffering and inconvenience, disabilities, expenses, past economic loss, future economic loss, and voluntary home domestic care. 

  1. In a defence filed on 25 October 1999, the defendant did not admit that the plaintiff had suffered personal injury as alleged in para. 5 of the Statement of Claim and alleged, in relation to the pleaded injuries other than psychological injuries, that they were a manifestation of pre-existing degenerative conditions of the plaintiff’s spine, and in relation to the pleaded psychological injury, that it was the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jackel v Sita Queensland 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
[2000] QDC 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jackel v Sita Queensland Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained during employment. The matter was heard in the Queensland District Court. The plaintiff, Jackel, claimed that the defendant, Sita Queensland Pty Ltd, was liable for his injuries under the Workers' Compensation Act 1990. The central issue for determination was whether a medical certificate was required before the plaintiff could commence legal action against the defendant.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including whether the defendant had made an offer to settle the claim, whether there had been a waiver of the requirement for a medical certificate, and whether there was an estoppel preventing the defendant from denying liability. The court examined these issues in light of relevant statutes and precedents, particularly the decisions in Neuss v Roche Bros Pty Ltd and Bonser v Melnacis. The court held that the statutory requirement for a medical certificate before proceeding with a claim was not satisfied, and thus, the plaintiff's action was premature.

However, the court also found that the defendant had made an offer to settle the claim, which was accepted by the plaintiff. The court noted that this offer could constitute a waiver of the medical certificate requirement, potentially allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the claim. Additionally, the court considered whether an estoppel applied, preventing the defendant from denying liability due to the circumstances surrounding the offer. The court's analysis led to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim could proceed, pending further submissions on the terms of the settlement.

The court ordered that the terms of the settlement would be decided after further submissions from the parties. This decision indicates that the court found in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the claim to proceed but leaving the final determination of the settlement terms for future consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

[Terms To Be Decided After Further Submissions]

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.