John William Sinclair v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of John William Sinclair v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Sinclair, sought information from Coles regarding his claim of slipping and falling in one of their stores. The matter was brought before the court under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), specifically concerning Mr Sinclair's request for information and documents from Coles. He argued that Coles' response to his request was inadequate and sought records regarding any previous or similar incidents, as well as information about safety complaints. Additionally, he sought the video footage of the incident or statutory declarations from specific employees explaining why the footage did not exist. The court had to determine whether Coles was required to provide information about prior incidents and whether they were obligated to provide an explanation or verification regarding the CCTV footage or its absence.

The court examined the scope of Coles' obligation under section 27(1)(b)(i) of the Act, finding that the obligation was determined by the words used in the provision and not by the description given in the request. The court concluded that Coles was not required to provide information about "complaints made about safety" at the store as it was broader than the requirement of this section. The court also held that Mr Sinclair's request for records should have been confined to seeking "information" rather than using broader terms such as "records". Regarding the CCTV footage, the court found that Mr Sinclair had failed in his application concerning the footage. However, he partially succeeded in his claim for information about previous, similar incidents. The court also considered the costs associated with the application and ordered Coles to pay 20% of Mr Sinclair's costs on the standard basis.

In summary, the court ruled that Coles was not required to provide information about complaints made about safety at the store, and that Mr Sinclair's request for records should have been more specific. The court found that Mr Sinclair had failed in his application concerning the CCTV footage but partially succeeded in his claim for information about previous, similar incidents. The court ordered Coles to provide information about previous incidents at the Hope Island store that are similar to the incident alleged by Mr Sinclair within 14 days of the order. Additionally, Coles was ordered to pay 20% of Mr Sinclair's costs on the standard basis.