Munns v Lindsay Brothers - [2005] QSC 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Munns v Lindsay Brothers [2005] QSC 169

PARTIES:

PETER JOHN MUNNS
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
LINDSAY BROTHERS MANAGEMENT ACN 010 571 954
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

BS10462 of 2004

BS10530 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2005

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Applications dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION – where plaintiff brought proceedings by leave pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 – application that proceedings be struck out as a nullity – whether the plaintiff employee’s entitlement to damages abolished by s 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – where dispute as to whether claim was for “damages” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – where dispute as to whether the defendant employer’s liability was one against which the employer is required to provide under a law of another State within the meaning of s 11(2) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 (Vic)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6, s 9, s 10,
s 43
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 11, s 253, s 280,
s 285

Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Ferrari [2005] QSC 005

Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 157 Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 273 Tanks v WorkCover Queensland [2001] QCA 103

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC for the applicant

D C Rangiah for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

BCI Law for the applicant

Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J
: Lindsay Brothers Management brings the present applications seeking orders in respect of a proceeding brought against it by Mr Munns, as plaintiff, for damages for personal injuries. That proceeding (BS 10530/04) was commenced upon leave being granted on 30 November 2004 pursuant to

s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“the PIPA”). For convenience sake, I shall refer to Mr Munns, hereafter as the plaintiff and Lindsay Brothers Management as the defendant.
In the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in the PIPA proceedings, it is alleged that on 2 December 2001, the plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the defendant. It is pleaded that the plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant as a truck driver, drove a truck and two refrigerated trailers owned by the defendant to the Footscray markets in Melbourne. (The pallets had been loaded with produce by the defendant’s employees.) It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injury when, in the course of unloading the pallets, he slipped on loose produce on the floor of the trailer that had become damp with condensation. It is alleged that the produce was strewn on the floor as a result of the pallets shifting during the trip due to their not being properly secured
In December 2001, the plaintiff made an application for worker’s compensation to WorkCover Queensland.…

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 Munns v Lindsay Brothers

Details

AGLC: Munns v Lindsay Brothers [2005] QSC 169
Case: [2005] QSC 169
Decision Date: 21 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Munns v Lindsay Brothers was a case involving a dispute between an employee and his employer regarding workers' compensation. The employee brought proceedings by leave pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 against the employer, which was represented by Lindsay Brothers. The employer applied that the proceedings be struck out as a nullity, contending that the employee's entitlement to damages was abolished by section 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The central legal issue for the court was whether the plaintiff's claim for damages was within the scope of section 11(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, and whether the defendant's liability was one against which the employer is required to provide under a law of another State within the meaning of section 11(2) of the same Act.

The court found that the dispute hinged on the interpretation of the terms "damages" and "law of another State" as they pertain to the abolition of common law actions for damages. The employer argued that the plaintiff's claim was for damages, which were abolished under the Act. The court needed to determine whether the claim was indeed for damages and whether the employer's liability was covered by a law of another state. The court dismissed the employer's application, holding that the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation was not abolished and that the employer's liability was not exempted by another state's law. The reasoning involved a detailed examination of statutory language and legislative intent to ascertain whether the plaintiff's claim fell within the scope of the abolition provisions.

The court's decision was that the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation was not extinguished by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, and the employer's liability was not exempted by another state's law. Consequently, the employer's applications to strike out the proceedings were dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's claim did not constitute "damages" within the meaning of section 11(1) of the Act, and that the employer's liability was not one against which the employer is required to provide under a law of another State within the meaning of section 11(2). The court's decision allowed the proceedings to continue, ensuring that the plaintiff could pursue his claim for workers' compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications dismissed

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:	Munns v Lindsay Brothers [2005] QSC 169
PARTIES:	PETER JOHN MUNNS (plaintiff/respondent) v LINDSAY BROTHERS MANAGEMENT ACN 010 571 954 (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	BS10462 of 2004 BS10530 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 March 2005
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Applications dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION – where plaintiff brought proceedings by leave pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 – application that proceedings be struck out as a nullity – whether the plaintiff employee’s entitlement to damages abolished by s 253 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – where dispute as to whether claim was for “damages” within the meaning of s 11(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 – where dispute as to whether the defendant employer’s liability was one against which the employer is required to provide under a law of another State within the meaning of s 11(2) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 (Vic) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6, s 9, s 10, s 43 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 11, s 253, s 280, s 285 Glenco Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Ferrari [2005] QSC 005 Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 157 Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 273 Tanks v WorkCover Queensland [2001] QCA 103
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC for the applicant D C Rangiah for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	BCI Law for the applicant Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the respondent