Labaj v Collins - [2004] QCA 334

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Labaj v Collins [2004] QCA 334

PARTIES:

JOHN LABAJ
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
LES COLLINS
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4034 of 2004
DC No 225 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 September 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Allow the appeal
2. Set aside the judgment of the District Court and order that the application be dismissed with costs to be assessed

3. Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND THIRD PARTIES – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE – RIGHT TO PROCEED FOR DAMAGES – where appellant claims respondent negligently prepared report for Workcover Queensland – whether appellant is statute barred by s 523 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 523
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 576
Work Health Act (NT), s 181

COUNSEL:

B P Marais for the appellant
M H Hindman for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Wilson Ryan Grose Lawyers for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The background circumstances to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Cullinane J.

Though the statement of claim is badly drafted one can discern from it that the appellant alleges that the respondent owed him a duty of care with respect to the preparation of the report in question, and then it is alleged that she breached that duty. In other words the statement of claim contains at least an allegation that the respondent negligently prepared the report in question and in consequence the appellant suffered loss.

The first question is whether or not such a cause of action is barred by either s 523 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 or s 576 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The sections are in identical terms, and like Cullinane J I will assume that the former is the applicable provision.

Prima facie the section is concerned with an action consequent upon the disclosure of information in the possession of WorkCover. Even construing the section liberally, and having regard to its perceived purpose, it cannot be construed, in my view, as providing absolute protection to a person, such as the respondent, engaged by WorkCover to prepare a report about a claimant.

It is instructive in my view to have regard for comparative purposes to provisions of Chapter 8 of the 1996 Act which deals with Enforcement. Section 458 provides that an “authorised person has the function of conducting investigations and inspections to monitor compliance with this Act.” Then s 466(1) goes on to provide that an “authorised person does not incur civil liability for an act…

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 Labaj v Collins

Details

AGLC: Labaj v Collins [2004] QCA 334
Case: [2004] QCA 334
Decision Date: 17 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Labaj v Collins is a case that arose from a dispute between the appellant, Mr Labaj, and the respondent, Mr Collins. The dispute concerns whether Mr Labaj can pursue damages from Mr Collins, who negligently prepared a report for Workcover Queensland, despite having already received workers' compensation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Labaj sought to claim damages for the alleged negligence of Mr Collins, who prepared a report that influenced the assessment of his workers' compensation claim. The central legal issue was whether Mr Labaj's claim was statute barred by section 523 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

The court examined whether Mr Labaj's common law claim for damages was precluded by the statutory compensation scheme. The court found that Mr Labaj's claim was not statute barred. The reasoning of the court focused on the distinction between claims for compensation under the statutory scheme and claims for damages at common law. The court held that the statutory compensation scheme does not preclude alternative rights of action for damages at common law. This interpretation was based on the principle that workers' compensation is not intended to be the exclusive remedy for all injuries sustained in the course of employment. The court also considered that the statutory scheme does not explicitly preclude such claims, and therefore, Mr Labaj's common law claim was not statute barred.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the District Court was set aside. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs, and the respondent was directed to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between statutory compensation and common law damages, affirming that workers may pursue both forms of redress where appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal

2. Set aside the judgment of the District Court and order that the application be dismissed with costs to be assessed

3. Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed

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:	Labaj v Collins [2004] QCA 334
PARTIES:	JOHN LABAJ (plaintiff/appellant) v LES COLLINS (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4034 of 2004 DC No 225 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 September 2004
JUDGES:	Williams JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal 2. Set aside the judgment of the District Court and order that the application be dismissed with costs to be assessed 3. Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND THIRD PARTIES – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE – RIGHT TO PROCEED FOR DAMAGES – where appellant claims respondent negligently prepared report for Workcover Queensland – whether appellant is statute barred by s 523 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 523 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 576 Work Health Act (NT), s 181
COUNSEL:	B P Marais for the appellant M H Hindman for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Wilson Ryan Grose Lawyers for the respondent