Keong v Queensland Rail Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Keong v Queensland Rail Ltd [2018] QDC 31

PARTIES:

GLEN JOSEPH KEONG

(Plaintiff)

v

QUEENSLAND RAIL LTD

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4502/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30, 31 October and 1, 2 November and written submissions of 13, 22 and 28 November 2017

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $153,150.19

No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – master/servant action – psychological injury - need for profiling – consideration of circumstances relevant to need for special enquiry of applicant’s suitability – determination profiling necessary – likely result of such profiling – consequence that plaintiff would not have been employed in same capacity – consideration of likelihood of plaintiff being employed in another capacity – measure of damages – consideration of plaintiffs psychiatric vulnerability – predisposing him to psychiatric injury

Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis (1968) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403 - considered

Withyman v NSW [2013] NSWCA 10 – referred to

Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Dioceses of Townsville [1997] 1 QdR 29 – followed

Clarricoats v JJ Richard and Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214 – referred to

Marshall v Queensland Rehabilitation Services Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 168 – applied

Koehlerv Cerebos (Australia) Ltd [2005] 222 CLR 44 – referred to

Tabet v Scott (2010) 240 CLR 538 – considered

Rossi v Westbrook & Anor [2011] QSC 311 – referred to

Rossi v Westbrook & Anor [2013] QCA 102 0 – referred to

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 – applied

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 305B - 305E

 COUNSEL:

J Kimmins of counsel for the plaintiff

R Morton of counsel for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morris Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff

Hall and Wilcox for the defendant

Introduction

1. The plaintiff claims damages from the defendant (referred to as QR), his employer at the time, for the consequences of what is primarily a psychological injury said to have occurred as a result of three separate incidents which occurred at work on 2 October and 12 and 17 November 2011.  Each incident occurred during the performance of the plaintiff’s duties as an After Dark Customer Service Officer (“AD employee”).  The first incident occurred at the Burpengary Railway station, the next at Zillmere station and the last at the Morayfield station.  The defendant denies liability for the consequences of any of the incidents.  The quantum of the plaintiff’s claim is, in any case, also disputed.

Background

1. The plaintiff was born on 20 December 1984, so was 26 at the time of all three incidents.  The defendant determined to employ AD employees in about 2002.  Prior to doing so it commissioned a report from Risk Assessment International Pty Ltd entitled “Report on Risk Assessment for Proposed ‘After Dark’ Security Initiative’” (RMI Report). The plaintiff was engaged as an AD employee from 2 August 2010.  He’d previously been employed by…