DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Johnson v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2020] QDC 199
PARTIES:
CLINTON JAMIE JOHNSON
(plaintiff/applicant)v
FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
138 of 2016
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
20 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 August 2020
JUDGE:
Loury QC DCJ
ORDER:
The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CIVIL LAW – PERSONAL INJURY – where it is alleged the plaintiff suffered an injury in the course of his employment – where the plaintiff applies for a ruling that the defendant is not entitled to pursue a case that the plaintiff has intentionally embellished or overstated the effect of the claimed injury – where the plaintiff argues that such an argument amounts to fraud and is thereby is a matter that is required to be pleaded pursuant to s 150(1)(f) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 150
COUNSEL:
RC Morton and JM Sorbello for the plaintiff
WDP Campbell for the defendantSOLICITORS:
Morton & Morton Solicitors for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiff applies for a ruling that the defendant is not entitled to pursue a case that the plaintiff has intentionally embellished or overstated the effect of the claimed injury upon him. It is argued that such a case would amount to a claim of fraud and accordingly rule 150(1)(f) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 provides that such a matter must be specifically pleaded as does any fact from which an inference of fraud arises.[1]
[1]Rule 150(2).
A consideration of the application requires an understanding of the pleadings. The plaintiff’s case is that he suffered an injury in the course of his employment on 5 September 2014. That injury is particularised as an aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative right knee and medial meniscal injury and chronic neuropathic pain and features of resolving complex regional pain syndrome of the right lower leg and chronic nociceptive pain in the right lower leg.
Relevantly, the plaintiff pleads:
“6. On 5 September 2014:
(a) the plaintiff was performing his duties as a Plant Operator;
(b) in the course of his employment he was required to cover the load on his truck;
(c) the task required the plaintiff to:
(i) balance on the tow hitch with one foot, as there was insufficient room to place two feet on the tow hitch;
(ii) reach forward and grasp the rope of the covering tarpaulin;
(iii) pull the rope of the covering tarpaulin towards the rear of the truck;
(iv) hook the tarpaulin into securing hooks at the rear of the body of the truck;
(v) step down from the tow hitch;
(vi) once both feet have been placed on the ground, tie off the rope to the truck;
(d) the tow hitch was approximately 600mm from the ground;
(f) there were no hand holds on the rear of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnson v Fraser Coast Regional Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QDC 199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the defence, noting that the plaintiff's argument that such a defence amounted to fraud was not supported by the facts or the law. The court held that the defendant was entitled to pursue the defence that the plaintiff had intentionally embellished or overstated the effects of the claimed injury, and that this did not amount to fraud. The court found that the plaintiff's application was not well founded in law, and that the defendant was not precluded from pursuing this defence.
The court further noted that the defendant's defence did not amount to an allegation of fraud, and that the plaintiff's argument to the contrary was misplaced. The court held that the plaintiff's application was an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff should not be allowed to prevent the defendant from pursuing a legitimate defence. The court held that the application was an abuse of the court's process and refused the application.
The court refused the plaintiff's application and held that the defendant was not precluded from pursuing the defence that the plaintiff had intentionally embellished or overstated the effects of the claimed injury.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is refused.
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.