James v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2000] QCA 507

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: James v WorkCover Qld  [2000] QCA 507
PARTIES: ARTHUR JAMES
(applicant/applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 8040 of 2000
DC No 3179 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 14 December 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24 October 2000
JUDGES:

Pincus and Thomas JJA, Byrne J

Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court; Pincus JA and Byrne J concurring as to the orders made, Thomas JA dissenting

ORDER: Application for leave to appeal granted.  Appeal allowed with costs to be assessed.  Orders made below set aside and order in lieu that a copy of the statement of John Lampard referred to in Exhibit B to the affidavit of Peter Koutsoukis affirmed on 7 August 2000 be disclosed to the solicitors for the applicant, and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application filed in the District Court on 17 August 2000, to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – PROCEDURE BEFORE HEARING – WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 provided for provision of documents between parties on giving and responding to notice of claim and on holding conference with view to settlement – legal professional privilege preserved subject to certain exceptions – copies of documents "that may help the claimant to make a proper assessment of the offer" required to be disclosed – whether limited to documents on quantum, or extends to documents on liability

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GROUNDS FOR RESISTING PRODUCTION – LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – PARTICULAR CASES – loss adjuster's report obtained by respondent's solicitors and sent to applicant's solicitors – statement attached to report not sent to applicant's solicitors on grounds of legal professional privilege – whether statement privileged

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION – GENERALLY – OF WHAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS – investigative reports required to be disclosed – whether statement attached to and referred to in report a part of the report

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 280, s 283, s 285, s 288, s 293

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 526, cited

Boyes v Colins [2000] WASCA 344, 10 November 2000, cited

Brambles Holdings Ltd v WMC Engineering Services Pty Ltd (1995) 14 WAR 239, cited

Clough v Tameside and Glossop Health Authority [1998] 2 All E R 971, considered

Cockerill v Collins [1999] 2 Qd R 26, cited
Crisford v Haszard [2000] NZCA 73, 1 June 2000, cited
Ehrmann v Ehrmann [1896] 2 Ch 826, considered

Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1998) 168 ALR 123, considered

General Accident Assurance Company v Chrusz (1999) 45 OR (3d) 321, cited

Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674, considered

Interchase Corporation Limited (in liq) v Grosvenor Hill…

Continue reading James v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
James v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QCA 507
Case
[2000] QCA 507
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved James, who sought compensation from WorkCover Queensland. The primary dispute concerned the disclosure of certain documents that might assist in assessing the compensation offer. Specifically, the court had to determine whether certain documents, including a statement attached to an investigative report, were subject to legal professional privilege and therefore not required to be disclosed. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The key legal issues the court had to address were the scope of disclosure requirements under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, and the extent to which legal professional privilege could be invoked to withhold documents. The central question was whether the privilege applied to a statement attached to a report obtained by the respondent's solicitors and sent to the applicant's solicitors. The court also had to determine if this statement was integral to the report itself and thus required to be disclosed.

In its reasoning, the court found that the statutory disclosure obligations under the WorkCover Queensland Act extended to documents relevant to both the liability and quantum of the claim, contrary to the respondent's contention that privilege could be claimed over such documents. The court held that the statement in question was not privileged, as it was not prepared for the dominant purpose of giving legal advice. The court further held that the statement was part of the report and therefore required to be disclosed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made in the lower court were set aside. The court mandated that the respondent disclose the specified statement to the applicant's solicitors and pay the applicant's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed with costs to be assessed. Orders made below set aside and order in lieu that a copy of the statement of John Lampard referred to in Exhibit B to the affidavit of Peter Koutsoukis affirmed on 7 August 2000 be disclosed to the solicitors for the applicant, and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application filed in the District Court on 17 August 2000, 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.