Judge v RH Grey and Son Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Judge v RH Grey & Son Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QDC 33

PARTIES:

ENDA MATTHEW JUDGE
(Plaintiff)

V

RH GREY & SON PTY LTD

and

DANBIL PTY LTD

and

DANIEL BURKE
(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

BD 114 of 2011

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

28, 29 February 2012

JUDGE:

Dorney QC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The judgment of the Court is that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the amount of $566,752.19 (which includes interest on appropriate damages to this date).

2.   Both parties are to file, and serve, written submissions on costs before 4:00pm on 16 March 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – measure of damages – personal injuries

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 281(4)

Cameron v Foster & Anor [2010] QSC 372

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 051

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

McClintock v Trojan Workforce No. 4 Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QSC 216

Rossi v Westbrook & Anor [2011] QSC 311

COUNSEL:

L T Barnes for the Plaintiff
R A Myers for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

McKeering Down Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Hede Byrne & Hall Solicitors for the Defendant

Introduction

1. On 1 May 2009, the plaintiff, during the course of his employment with the defendants at a cotton farm at Mungindi in Queensland, was assisting in the operation of a cotton compactor when he suffered a severe crush injury to the right forefoot, resulting in the later amputation of the second, third, fourth and fifth toes. 

1. By reason of admissions made - which appear in the Amended Defence filed 16 May 2011 - the defendants have stated that liability is admitted pursuant to s 281(4) of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“WCRA”).

1. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff, who had left Ireland in December 2008, had obtained an Australian “working visa” (valid for one year) before he left.  He was engaged in that work at that time as a result of a decision which he had reached that he liked Australia and wished to stay a second year. That meant, for the purposes of extending his visa for that additional time, he was required to work 88 days on a farm or in a regional area in Australia during the initial year. 

1. Although the only major issue is the quantum of damages, many aspects of that issue are still in contest, including: the prospect of the plaintiff having stayed in Australia but for the incident; if he had stayed, what type of work he might have obtained, and for how long in any particular instance of it (considering the advantages and disadvantages arising from such an instance or instances); the actual extent of his residual working capacity, bearing in mind the nature of his physical disability; whether he…