Nguyen v Woolworths Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nguyen v Woolworths Limited [2016] QDC 130

PARTIES:

MOSES NGUYEN
(applicant)

v

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1754 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2016, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2016

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application is allowed.

2.   The respondent pay the applicants costs of and incidental to the application on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury to employee – Liability of employer – pre-litigation procedure – obligation to provide information reasonably requested – scope of obligation – whether requests reasonable.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s14A

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, ss279, 273, 31

Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane [2008] 1 Qd R 276

Healy v Logan City Council [2016] QDC 15

COUNSEL: 

R Morgan for the applicant

M T O’Sullivan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant

Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the respondent  

  1. This is an application whereby the applicant is seeking further documentation pursuant to section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (“WCRA”).

  1. The applicant alleges that he was injured at work whilst picking stock at a distribution centre and placing it on a pallet for transport to a Woolworths store.  He alleges that he was required to perform an unsafe manual-handling task during the course of loading the pallet, which caused him to injure his lower back.

  1. Section 279 of the WCRA is in the following terms:

“(1) The parties must cooperate in relation to a claim, in particular by –

(a) giving each other copies of relevant documents about:

(i) the circumstances of the event resulting in the injury;  and

(ii) the worker’s injury;  and

(iii) the worker’s prospects of rehabilitation;  and

(b) giving information reasonably requested by each other party about –    

(i) the circumstances of the event resulting in the injury;  and

(ii) the nature of the injury and of any impairment or financial loss resulting from the injury;  and

(iii) if applicable – the medical treatment and rehabilitation the worker has sought from, or been provided with, by the worker’s employer or the insurer;  and

(iv) the worker’s medical history, as far as it is relevant to the claim;  and

(v) any applications for compensation made by the claimant or worker for any injury resulting from the same event.

….”

  1. The application focuses upon relevant documents about “the circumstances of the event resulting in the injury”. 

  1. The term “event” is defined in section 31 of the WCRA in the following terms: –

“(1) An event is anything that results in injury, including a latent onset injury, to a worker.

(2) An event includes continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions that results in an injury to a worker.

(3) A worker may sustain 1 or multiple injuries as a result of an event whether the injury happens or injuries happen immediately or over a period.

(4)…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nguyen v Woolworths 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
[2016] QDC 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nguyen was an employee of Woolworths who alleged he sustained an injury during the course of his employment. He commenced proceedings against Woolworths for compensation. Before the matter was listed for hearing, Woolworths made an application to the court to compel Nguyen to provide certain information which it claimed was necessary to prepare his case. Nguyen objected to the application, arguing the requests were unreasonable. The court had to determine whether the requests for information were reasonable and if the applicant had an obligation to provide such information prior to litigation.

The central issue before the court was whether Woolworths' requests for information were reasonable in the context of pre-litigation procedures. The court examined the nature and scope of the obligation on an employee to provide information to their employer in the context of preparing a claim for compensation. The court also considered the principles that guide the assessment of the reasonableness of such requests. The court found that the requests were indeed reasonable and that Nguyen had an obligation to provide the information as sought by Woolworths.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that Woolworths' requests for information were reasonable given the circumstances of the case. The court found that Nguyen had an obligation to provide the information reasonably requested by Woolworths as part of the pre-litigation process. The court noted that such requests were necessary to facilitate the proper preparation of the defence and to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. Consequently, the court allowed the application, ordering Nguyen to provide the requested information and that Woolworths pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is allowed.

2. The respondent pay the applicants costs of and incidental to the application 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.