Macdonald v Teys Australia Distribution Proprietary Limited - [2013] QDC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Macdonald v Teys Australia Distribution Proprietary Limited [2013] QDC 139

PARTIES:

LAURIE DON MACDONALD

(Applicant)

and

TEYS AUSTRALIA DISTRIBUTION PROPRIETARY LIMITED

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1123/2013

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2013 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2013

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

1. Order as per the draft.

2. Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent provide information pursuant to section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)- where the applicant sought an order that documents be provided pursuant to section 279 of the Act - where the applicant sought an order for an inspection of the subject premises- where the applicant sought a declaration he is entitled to seek damages pursuant to section 237 (1) (a) (i) of the Act for a back injury - where the applicant sought an order to strike out paragraph 22 of the defence pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

LEGISLATION

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

s 237 (1) (a) (i), 275, 279 (1) (a), 279 (1) (b), 279 (3), 318C

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 171, 250.

CASES

Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths [2012] QDC 98 at 33

Bell v Australia Meat Holdings [2003] QCA 209

Ley v Woolworths Limited [2013] QSX 59

COUNSEL:

Mr Cross for the applicant/plaintiff

Mr O’Driscoll for the defendant/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Quinn & Scattini Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the defendant/respondent

The application before me today is an application that the applicant seeks orders that the respondent provide information pursuant to section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. There are specific questions for which information is sought. The applicant had sought more information than is being sought today. Some of the information that had previously been sought has been provided by the respondent. In addition, the applicant seeks documents to be provided pursuant to section 279 of the Act. Further, the applicant seeks an inspection of the subject premises so that his expert, presumably, can provide a report for the future conduct of the proceedings. In addition to those three specific applications, the applicant seeks a declaration that he is entitled to seek damages pursuant to section 237 subsection (1) paragraph (a)(i) of the Act for the back injury specified in the notices of claim for damages, dated 13 April 2012. Finally, the applicant seeks an order, pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 171, that paragraph 22 of the defence be struck out.

Briefly: in the first incident, the plaintiff claims he was required to pick up and place cartons of meat from one palette onto another. He claims the workplace area in which he was required to pick up the cartons was restricted, and the area could only fit two palettes wide and three palettes long. As…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Macdonald v Teys Australia Distribution Proprietary Limited 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QDC 139
Decision Date: 19 June 2013 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Macdonald, sought an order for the respondent, Teys Australia Distribution Proprietary Limited, to provide information, documents, and to allow an inspection of the subject premises under section 279 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The applicant also sought a declaration that he was entitled to damages for a back injury under section 237(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Additionally, Macdonald sought an order to strike out paragraph 22 of the respondent's defence on the basis that it was irrelevant and not admitted. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The court considered whether Macdonald was entitled to the information, documents, and inspection of the premises as requested. The tribunal also examined whether Macdonald was entitled to damages for the back injury and whether paragraph 22 of the respondent’s defence should be struck out. The central issue was the scope and application of section 279 of the Act, as well as the admissibility and relevance of the defence.

The tribunal determined that Macdonald was entitled to the information, documents, and inspection of the premises as sought. The tribunal found that the request for information and documents was necessary for Macdonald to properly pursue his claim for damages. The tribunal also found that Macdonald was entitled to damages for the back injury, as the evidence supported his claim. Regarding the defence, the tribunal held that paragraph 22 was relevant and therefore should not be struck out.

The tribunal made an order in favour of Macdonald, granting the requested information, documents, and inspection. The tribunal also declared that Macdonald was entitled to seek damages for the back injury. The application to strike out paragraph 22 of the defence was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order as per the draft.

2. Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the 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:	Macdonald v Teys Australia Distribution Proprietary Limited [2013] QDC 139
PARTIES:	LAURIE DON MACDONALD (Applicant) and TEYS AUSTRALIA DISTRIBUTION PROPRIETARY LIMITED (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1123/2013
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2013 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2013
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	1. Order as per the draft. 2. Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent provide information pursuant to section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)- where the applicant sought an order that documents be provided pursuant to section 279 of the Act - where the applicant sought an order for an inspection of the subject premises- where the applicant sought a declaration he is entitled to seek damages pursuant to section 237 (1) (a) (i) of the Act for a back injury - where the applicant sought an order to strike out paragraph 22 of the defence pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. LEGISLATION Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 237 (1) (a) (i), 275, 279 (1) (a), 279 (1) (b), 279 (3), 318C Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 171, 250. CASES Alavi-Moghaddam v Woolworths [2012] QDC 98 at 33 Bell v Australia Meat Holdings [2003] QCA 209 Ley v Woolworths Limited [2013] QSX 59
COUNSEL:	Mr Cross for the applicant/plaintiff Mr O’Driscoll for the defendant/respondent
SOLICITORS:	Quinn & Scattini Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the defendant/respondent