King v Parsons - [2005] QSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: King v Parsons & Anor [2005] QSC 214
PARTIES: DESMOND CHARLES KING
(applicant)
v
ELSA ALVINA PARSONS
(first respondent)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
ABN 83 075 695 966
(second respondent)
FILE NO/S: BS 5038 of 2005
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 27 July 2005
JUDGE: McMurdo J
ORDERS: 1. It will be declared that the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) does apply to the applicant’s claim against the first and second respondents for damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident on 30 July 2003 2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of this originating application to be assessed upon a standard basis
CATCHWORDS: STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – SPECIFIC INTERPRETATIONS – where applicant was an Australian postal worker who was injured whilst swerving to avoid the first respondent reversing out of her driveway – where the second respondent was the insurer and had admitted liability – where the Civil Liability Act 2003 does not apply to “an injury as defined under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003” – where the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act does not apply to workers employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency – whether the applicant’s injury was an injury as defined under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RISKS – “ARISING OUT OF AND/OR IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT” – GENERALLY – where the definition of “injury” in s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 requires employment to be a “significant contributing factor to the injury” – whether applicant’s employment was a “significant contributing factor”
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 52, s 53, s 54, s 57, s 58,
s 59, s 60
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 4, s 5, s 54, s 55,
s 55A, s 55B, s 55C, s 55D, s 55E
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6, s 26, s 49,
s 50, s 51, s 52, s 53, s 54, s 55
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld),
s 10, s 11, s 30, s 32, s 34, s 35, s 36
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 11, s 34

followed
Devlin v South Molle Island Resort [2003] 2 Qd R 346, not followed
COUNSEL: D C Rangiah for the applicant
P V Ambrose SC for the first and second respondent
SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the applicant
Herbert Geer & Rundle for the first and second respondent

McMURDO J: On 20 July 2003, the applicant, Mr King, was a postman making deliveries in Wootton Crescent, Springwood. As he rode his motorcycle along the footpath past Ms Parsons’ house, she reversed her car from her driveway into his path. He had to swerve to miss her and collided with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading King v Parsons

Details

AGLC: King v Parsons [2005] QSC 214
Case: [2005] QSC 214
Decision Date: 5 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were King, an Australian postal worker who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and Parsons, the driver who caused the accident. The dispute was whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to King's claim for damages arising from the accident. The Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 did not apply to workers employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, such as King. The court was required to determine whether King's injury qualified as an "injury" under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, and whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to his claim.

The court held that the Civil Liability Act 2003 did apply to King's claim. The court held that the term "injury" in the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 was not limited to injuries that occurred in the course of employment, but also included injuries that occurred while the worker was engaged in activities related to their employment, such as commuting to work. Therefore, King's injury occurred while he was engaged in an activity related to his employment, and the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to his claim. The court also held that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 did not exclude Commonwealth employees from its coverage, and that the exclusion only applied to workers' compensation claims, not civil liability claims.

The final orders were that it will be declared that the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to King's claim for damages against the respondents, and that King pay the respondents' costs of the originating application to be assessed upon a standard basis. The court held that the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to King's claim because his injury occurred while he was engaged in an activity related to his employment, and that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 did not exclude Commonwealth employees from its coverage. The court also held that King pay the respondents' costs of the originating application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It will be declared that the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) does apply to the applicant’s claim against the first and second respondents for damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident on 30 July 2003 2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of this originating application to be assessed upon a standard basis

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.

CITATION:	King v Parsons & Anor [2005] QSC 214
PARTIES:	DESMOND CHARLES KING (applicant) v ELSA ALVINA PARSONS (first respondent) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 83 075 695 966 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5038 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING	Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	5 August 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2005
JUDGE:	McMurdo J
ORDERS:	1. It will be declared that the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) does apply to the applicant’s claim against the first and second respondents for damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident on 30 July 2003 2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of this originating application to be assessed upon a standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – SPECIFIC INTERPRETATIONS – where applicant was an Australian postal worker who was injured whilst swerving to avoid the first respondent reversing out of her driveway – where the second respondent was the insurer and had admitted liability – where the Civil Liability Act 2003 does not apply to “an injury as defined under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003” – where the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act does not apply to workers employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency – whether the applicant’s injury was an injury as defined under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – EMPLOYMENT RISKS – “ARISING OUT OF AND/OR IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT” – GENERALLY – where the definition of “injury” in s 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 requires employment to be a “significant contributing factor to the injury” – whether applicant’s employment was a “significant contributing factor”
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5, s 52, s 53, s 54, s 57, s 58, s 59, s 60 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 4, s 5, s 54, s 55, s 55A, s 55B, s 55C, s 55D, s 55E Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6, s 26, s 49, s 50, s 51, s 52, s 53, s 54, s 55 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 30, s 32, s 34, s 35, s 36 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 11, s 34
followed
Devlin v South Molle Island Resort [2003] 2 Qd R 346, not followed
COUNSEL:	D C Rangiah for the applicant P V Ambrose SC for the first and second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the applicant Herbert Geer & Rundle for the first and second respondent