SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
| CITATION: | James Thane Pty Ltd v Conrad International Hotels Corporation Conrad International Hotels Corporation v Workers’ Compensation Board Conrad International Hotels Corporation v Jupiters Limited [1999] QCA 516 | |||
| PARTIES: | HEATHER JANE TETU (first plaintiff) and MATTHEW HUGHES (second plaintiff) v JAMES THANE PTY LTD (ACN 002 995 119) (first defendant/appellant) and CONRAD INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION (ARBN 010 471 137) (second defendant/respondent) and JUPITERS LIMITED (ACN 010 741 045) (third defendant) and WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND (third party) | |||
| FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 4481 of 1999 SC No 1835 of 1999 | |||
| ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane | |||
| PARTIES: | HEATHER JANE TETU (first plaintiff) and MATTHEW HUGHES (second plaintiff) v JAMES THANE PTY LTD (ACN 002 995 119) (first defendant) and CONRAD INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION (ARBN 010 471 137) (second defendant/respondent) and | |||
| JUPITERS LIMITED (ACN 010 741 045) (third defendant) and WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND (third party/appellant) | ||||
| FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 4482 of 1999 SC No 1835 of 1999 | |||
| ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane | |||
| PARTIES: | HEATHER JANE TETU (first plaintiff) and MATTHEW HUGHES (second plaintiff) v JAMES THANE PTY LTD (ACN 002 995 119) (first defendant) and CONRAD INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION (ARBN 010 471 137) (second defendant/appellant) and JUPITERS LIMITED (ACN 010 741 045) (third defendant/respondent) and WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND (third party) | |||
| FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 4571 of 1999 SC No 1835 of 1999 | |||
| ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane | |||
| DIVISION: | Court of Appeal | |||
| PROCEEDING: | Appeal | |||
| DELIVERED ON: | 14 December 1999 | |||
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane | |||
| HEARING DATE: | 12 November 1999 | |||
| JUDGES: | McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Williams J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made. | |||
ORDER: | Appeal No 4481 of 1999: Appeal allowed. Vary the judgment so that it provides that the first defendant is liable to contribute 10% of the plaintiff’s damages and the second defendant is liable to contribute 90% of the plaintiff’s damages. Dismiss the respondent’s notice of contention. Order the respondent second defendant pay the appellant’s costs to be assessed. | |||
| Appeal No 4482 of 1999: Appeal dismissed. Order the appellant first defendant to pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed. | ||||
| Appeal No 4571 of 1999: Appeal allowed. Declare that the appellant/second defendant is entitled to be indemnified by the respondent/third defendant to the full extent of any liability which the appellant/second defendant has arising out of the plaintiff’s claim. Order the respondent third defendant to pay the appellant’ costs to be assessed. | ||||
CATCHWORDS: | NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – evidence reasonably capable of supporting findings made by trial judge – trial judge had the advantage of hearing various witnesses – primary findings made by trial judge should stand. | |||
| ||||
| RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – whether 30/70 apportionment is sustainable – evidence established that the active negligence was on the part of Conrad and its employees – Thane negligent as it failed to ensure safety of all its employees pursuant to s 9(1) Workplace Health and Safety Act |
- AGLC
- James Thane Pty Ltd v Conrad International Hotels Corp [1999] QCA 516
- Case
- [1999] QCA 516
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the findings of the trial judge were reasonably supported by the evidence. The court was also required to determine the appropriate apportionment of liability and damages between the respondents. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in apportioning liability between the respondents and in calculating the damages awarded. The first respondent argued that the trial judge’s findings were not reasonably open on the evidence and that the damages awarded were excessive.
The court found that the trial judge had the advantage of hearing various witnesses and observing their demeanour, which was a significant factor in determining the weight to be given to their evidence. The court held that the trial judge’s findings were reasonably open on the evidence and that there was nothing to suggest that the trial judge had failed to properly exercise his or her discretion. The court further found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors in apportioning liability and damages between the respondents. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the findings of the trial judge, but allowed in relation to the apportionment of liability and damages. The court varied the judgment to provide that the first respondent was liable to contribute 10% of the appellant’s damages and the second respondent was liable to contribute 90% of the appellant’s damages.
The court further ordered that the second respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed. The respondent’s notice of contention was dismissed. The appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment of the primary judge was varied in relation to the apportionment of liability and damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal No 4481 of 1999: Appeal allowed. Vary the judgment so that it provides that the first defendant is liable to contribute 10% of the plaintiff’s damages and the second defendant is liable to contribute 90% of the plaintiff’s damages. Dismiss the respondent’s notice of contention. Order the respondent second defendant pay the appellant’s costs to be assessed.
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.