Nguyen v Swift Australia Pty Ltd - [2009] QDC 219

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nguyen v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 219

PARTIES:

TUYEN NGUYEN
(Plaintiff)

v

SWIFT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 011 062 338)
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD3325 of 2002

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14, 15 & 16 October 2008. Written submissions 23 & 28 October and 12 & 13 November 2008

JUDGE:

Andrews SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $225,293.52 inclusive of interest. Costs reserved for submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant – where the plaintiff was involved in a slip and fall whilst carrying out duties as an employee – whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER – DUTY OF CARE – FORESEEABILITY OF INJURY – whether there was a failure to provide a safe walkway – whether the defendant’s breach caused the injury to the plaintiff – whether the defendant discharged an obligation to ensure the workplace health and safety of the plaintiff at work – whether the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised proper diligence to ensure the obligation was discharged – whether the risk to the plaintiff was more than a trivial risk – whether the injury caused to the plaintiff was one which could by some means have been prevented – whether the plaintiff relied exclusively on a failure by the employer to provide a safe system of work – whether the plaintiff established matters referred to in s 312(1)(c) to (i) of the WorkCover (Qld) Act 1996.

DAMAGES – personal injuries – measure of – injury to knee – economic loss.

Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1985-1986) 160 CLR 301

Bourk v Powerserve P/L [2008] QCA 225

Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd(No. 1) [2005] QCA 263

Schiliro v Peppercorn Childcare Centres Pty Ltd(No. 2) [2000] QCA 18; [2001] 1 Qd R 518

Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 039

Fuller v Logan City Council[2006] QDC 305

Henley v State of Queensland [2002] QDC 256

Delacore v Australia Meat Holdings P/L [2005] QDC 109

Cook v Allianz [2007] QDC 108

Lee v Richards and The Transport Accident Commission [2008] QDC 257

Workplace Health and Safety Act1995(Qld) ss 22,23,27, 28,37

WorkCover Act 1996 (Qld) s312

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r149(1)(c)and(e)

COUNSEL:

J Kimmins for the plaintiff
Cross for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff
A K Compensation Lawyers for the defendant

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant (the employer) as a packer at the employer’s premises at 173 Riverview Road, Dinmore in Queensland. On or about 6 October…

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 Nguyen v Swift Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2009] QDC 219
Decision Date: 31 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nguyen v Swift Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Nguyen, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident. Nguyen was employed by Swift Australia Pty Ltd and suffered a knee injury during the course of his employment while slipping on a wet floor. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland, where the central issues revolved around the employer's duty of care and potential negligence. The court needed to determine whether Swift Australia Pty Ltd breached its duty of care to Nguyen by failing to provide a safe workplace, and if such a breach caused the injury. The plaintiff argued that the employer's failure to maintain a safe walkway and take reasonable precautions resulted in his injury, while the defendant contested these claims.

The court examined the statutory obligations under the WorkCover (Qld) Act 1996, particularly sections 312(1)(c) to (i), which outline the employer's duty to ensure workplace health and safety. The key question was whether Swift Australia Pty Ltd had discharged its obligation to provide a safe system of work. The court assessed the foreseeability of the risk, the triviality of the risk, and whether the injury could have been prevented. It was critical to determine if the injury was a direct consequence of the employer's failure and if Nguyen relied exclusively on this failure. The court found that Swift Australia Pty Ltd had indeed breached its duty by not ensuring the walkway was safe, leading to Nguyen's injury.

Upon concluding that the employer breached its duty of care, the court proceeded to assess the damages. Nguyen claimed economic loss due to his injury, which included medical expenses and loss of earnings. The court awarded Nguyen a total of $225,293.52, inclusive of interest. Costs for the proceedings were reserved pending further submissions. The judgment underscored the employer's responsibility to maintain a safe working environment and the importance of adhering to statutory obligations to prevent workplace injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $225,293.52 inclusive of interest. Costs reserved for submissions.

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:	Nguyen v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 219
PARTIES:	TUYEN NGUYEN (Plaintiff) v SWIFT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 011 062 338) (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD3325 of 2002
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14, 15 & 16 October 2008. Written submissions 23 & 28 October and 12 & 13 November 2008
JUDGE:	Andrews SC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $225,293.52 inclusive of interest. Costs reserved for submissions.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – DUTY OF CARE – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant – where the plaintiff was involved in a slip and fall whilst carrying out duties as an employee – whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. EMPLOYMENT LAW – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER – DUTY OF CARE – FORESEEABILITY OF INJURY – whether there was a failure to provide a safe walkway – whether the defendant’s breach caused the injury to the plaintiff – whether the defendant discharged an obligation to ensure the workplace health and safety of the plaintiff at work – whether the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised proper diligence to ensure the obligation was discharged – whether the risk to the plaintiff was more than a trivial risk – whether the injury caused to the plaintiff was one which could by some means have been prevented – whether the plaintiff relied exclusively on a failure by the employer to provide a safe system of work – whether the plaintiff established matters referred to in s 312(1)(c) to (i) of the WorkCover (Qld) Act 1996. DAMAGES – personal injuries – measure of – injury to knee – economic loss. Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1985-1986) 160 CLR 301 Bourk v Powerserve P/L [2008] QCA 225 Calvert v Mayne Nickless Ltd(No. 1) [2005] QCA 263 Schiliro v Peppercorn Childcare Centres Pty Ltd(No. 2) [2000] QCA 18; [2001] 1 Qd R 518 Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd (1964) 112 CLR 316 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 Pascoe v Coolum Resort Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 039 Fuller v Logan City Council[2006] QDC 305 Henley v State of Queensland [2002] QDC 256 Delacore v Australia Meat Holdings P/L [2005] QDC 109 Cook v Allianz [2007] QDC 108 Lee v Richards and The Transport Accident Commission [2008] QDC 257 Workplace Health and Safety Act1995(Qld) ss 22,23,27, 28,37 WorkCover Act 1996 (Qld) s312 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r149(1)(c)and(e)
COUNSEL:	J Kimmins for the plaintiff Cross for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff A K Compensation Lawyers for the defendant