Jacobs v Woolworths - [2010] QSC 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jacobs v Woolworths [2010] QSC 24

PARTIES:

CHRISTINE JOY JACOBS
(Applicant)
v
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

523 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

3 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2009

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. Declare that in relation to the injury which is the subject of the Notice of Claim by the applicant dated 4 September 2009 and received by the respondent on 10 September 2009, the applicant is a worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for injury, within the meaning of s 237(1)(d) of the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
2. Declare that the said Notice of Claim, pursuant to s 278(4) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, was deemed a notice compliant with s 275 of such Act upon the expiry of 10 business days after 10 September 2009.
3. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application which, if not agreed, are to be assessed on the standard basis.
4. Each party to have liberty to apply on giving to the other party 3 business days notice in respect of further orders.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law or by statute – right to proceed for damages – invalid application for compensation lodged – worker entitled to seek damages certificate – Workers Compensation Act (2003) (Qld) – ss 131 and 237(1)

COUNSEL:

R J Douglas SC for the applicant
G P Long SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Preston Law as town agents for Sciacca’s Lawyers for the applicant
MacDonnells Law for the respondent

The applicant alleges that she sustained an injury to her right shoulder in the course of her employment with the respondent between December 2006 and March 2009. On 10 September 2009, she served on the respondent a Notice of Claim for Damages in respect of that injury pursuant to s 275 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (hereinafter “the Act”).

The respondent – a self insurer - refuses to accept that Notice of Claim arguing that she has no entitlement to seek damages because she is not a person mentioned in s 237(1) of the Act. This section restricts the entitlement to claim damages for a work related injury to certain nominated classes of worker.

By this proceeding, the applicant seeks a declaration that she is entitled to seek damages for her alleged injury. The issue between the parties arises because the applicant had, at an earlier date, lodged with the respondent an application for statutory compensation which the respondent rejected. The respondent did so, on the grounds that the application as lodged out of time under s 131(1) of the Act and it refused to waive that non-compliance.

The applicant has sought a review of that decision with the Authority pursuant to chapter 13 of the Act, but such review has not been determined,…

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.

Continue reading Jacobs v Woolworths

Details

AGLC: Jacobs v Woolworths [2010] QSC 24
Case: [2010] QSC 24
Decision Date: 3 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in Jacobs v Woolworths, a decision of the Queensland District Court, brought an action against the respondent seeking to have their application for workers’ compensation declared to be valid. The applicant, who had lodged an invalid application for workers’ compensation, sought a damages certificate under section 237(1)(d) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The respondent sought to have the applicant’s claim dismissed. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to seek a damages certificate in light of their invalid application for compensation and, if so, whether the application was validly deemed to be compliant with section 275 of the Act. The court found that the applicant was a worker who had not lodged a valid application for compensation and was therefore entitled to seek a damages certificate. The court further found that the application was deemed to be compliant with section 275 of the Act. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application and that each party had liberty to apply for further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Declare that in relation to the injury which is the subject of the Notice of Claim by the applicant dated 4 September 2009 and received by the respondent on 10 September 2009, the applicant is a worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for injury, within the meaning of s 237(1)(d) of the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

2. Declare that the said Notice of Claim, pursuant to s 278(4) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, was deemed a notice compliant with s 275 of such Act upon the expiry of 10 business days after 10 September 2009.

3. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application which, if not agreed, are to be assessed on the standard basis.

4. Each party to have liberty to apply on giving to the other party 3 business days notice in respect of further orders.

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:	Jacobs v Woolworths [2010] QSC 24
PARTIES:	CHRISTINE JOY JACOBS (Applicant) v WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	523 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	3 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2009
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. Declare that in relation to the injury which is the subject of the Notice of Claim by the applicant dated 4 September 2009 and received by the respondent on 10 September 2009, the applicant is a worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for injury, within the meaning of s 237(1)(d) of the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). 2. Declare that the said Notice of Claim, pursuant to s 278(4) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, was deemed a notice compliant with s 275 of such Act upon the expiry of 10 business days after 10 September 2009. 3. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application which, if not agreed, are to be assessed on the standard basis. 4. Each party to have liberty to apply on giving to the other party 3 business days notice in respect of further orders.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law or by statute – right to proceed for damages – invalid application for compensation lodged – worker entitled to seek damages certificate – Workers Compensation Act (2003) (Qld) – ss 131 and 237(1)
COUNSEL:	R J Douglas SC for the applicant G P Long SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Preston Law as town agents for Sciacca’s Lawyers for the applicant MacDonnells Law for the respondent