O'Brien v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd - [2001] QSC 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: O’Brien & O’Brien v T F Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 217

PARTIES: PAUL DANIEL O’BRIEN
(first plaintiff)
and
PAMELA MAY O’BRIEN
(second plaintiff)
v
T F WOOLLAM & SON PTY LTD
(ACN 009 676 064)
(defendant)

FILE NO/S: S 5267/2000

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 25 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 6 April 2001

JUDGE: Philippides J

ORDER:
1. The separate questions are answered as follows:

(a) The defendant’s breach of s 30(1)(a) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;
(b) The defendant’s breach of s 31(1)(a)(i) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;
(c) The defendant’s breach of s 31(2) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;

(d) The defendant’s breach of s 31(3) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty.

CATCHWORDS:
EMPLOYMENT LAW – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – whether breaches of s 30(1)(a), s 31(1)(a)(i), s 31(2), and s 31(3) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 give rise to a private cause of action

Construction Safety Act 1971, s 20(b)(ii), s 21(b)(ii) and s 22(b)
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989, s 11, s 23(a), s 23(c)
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, s 28, s 30(1)(a), s 31(1)(a)(i), s 31(2) and (3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171(2), r 483(1)

Heil v Suncoast Fitness [2000] 2 Qd R 23
O’Connor v S P Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464
Percy v Central Control Financial Services Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 129 (2 May, 2000)
Percy v Central Control Financial Services Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 226 (8 June, 2001)
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 518
Schulz v Schmauser [2001] Qd R 540
Sherras v Van der Maat & Ors [1989] 1 Qd R 114

COUNSEL:
M Grant-Taylor SC for first and second plaintiffs

K Wilson for defendant

SOLICITORS: McNamara & Associates for first and second plaintiffs
Phillips Fox for defendant

PHILIPPIDES J:

The application

This is an application for the following:

1. Pursuant to r 483(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, that the following questions be subject to a decision by the court separately from other questions arising in the proceeding and before the trial of the proceeding:

“(a)Does the defendant’s breach of s 30(1)(a) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty?
(b)Does the defendant’s breach of s 31(1)(a)(i) of the

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 O'Brien v TF Woollam & Son 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: [2001] QSC 217
Decision Date: 25 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Brien v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien, sought to establish whether breaches of specific sections of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (WHS Act) could form the basis of a private right of action. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd, had breached sections 30(1)(a), 31(1)(a)(i), 31(2), and 31(3) of the WHS Act, which pertain to statutory duties relating to workplace health and safety. They argued that these breaches had led to injuries and damages suffered by Mr. O'Brien, who was an employee of the defendant.

The court was tasked with determining whether the breaches of the aforementioned sections of the WHS Act could independently create a private right of action in favour of the plaintiffs. This required the court to delve into the statutory framework and legislative intent behind the WHS Act, specifically examining whether the statutory provisions in question were intended to confer a private right of action upon individuals who suffered harm due to the breaches. The court had to consider the context and purpose of the WHS Act, the nature of the statutory duties outlined, and the existing case law on breach of statutory duty.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the language and structure of the WHS Act, as well as relevant precedents and statutory interpretations. It concluded that the provisions in question were not designed to create private rights of action, but rather to establish duties and obligations for the protection of workers' health and safety, primarily enforced by regulatory bodies. The court found that the statutory framework does not explicitly provide for a private right of action for individuals harmed by breaches of these specific sections of the WHS Act. Therefore, the court answered the questions posed by the plaintiffs in the negative, holding that the breaches alleged do not create a private right of action in favour of the plaintiffs.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the breaches of sections 30(1)(a), 31(1)(a)(i), 31(2), and 31(3) of the WHS Act, if proven, do not give rise to a private right of action in favour of the plaintiffs. This decision provides clarity on the scope and application of statutory duties under the WHS Act, impacting future claims related to workplace health and safety breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The separate questions are answered as follows:

(a) The defendant’s breach of s 30(1)(a) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;

(b) The defendant’s breach of s 31(1)(a)(i) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;

(c) The defendant’s breach of s 31(2) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty;

(d) The defendant’s breach of s 31(3) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty.

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:	O’Brien & O’Brien v T F Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 217
PARTIES:	PAUL DANIEL O’BRIEN (first plaintiff) and PAMELA MAY O’BRIEN (second plaintiff) v T F WOOLLAM & SON PTY LTD (ACN 009 676 064) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 5267/2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 April 2001
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	1. The separate questions are answered as follows: (a) The defendant’s breach of s 30(1)(a) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty; (b) The defendant’s breach of s 31(1)(a)(i) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty; (c) The defendant’s breach of s 31(2) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty; (d) The defendant’s breach of s 31(3) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, if proven, does not create in favour of the plaintiffs a private right of action in breach of statutory duty.
CATCHWORDS:	EMPLOYMENT LAW – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – whether breaches of s 30(1)(a), s 31(1)(a)(i), s 31(2), and s 31(3) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 give rise to a private cause of action Construction Safety Act 1971, s 20(b)(ii), s 21(b)(ii) and s 22(b) Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989, s 11, s 23(a), s 23(c) Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, s 28, s 30(1)(a), s 31(1)(a)(i), s 31(2) and (3) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171(2), r 483(1) Heil v Suncoast Fitness [2000] 2 Qd R 23 O’Connor v S P Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464 Percy v Central Control Financial Services Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 129 (2 May, 2000) Percy v Central Control Financial Services Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 226 (8 June, 2001) Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 518 Schulz v Schmauser [2001] Qd R 540 Sherras v Van der Maat & Ors [1989] 1 Qd R 114
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC for first and second plaintiffs K Wilson for defendant
SOLICITORS:	McNamara & Associates for first and second plaintiffs Phillips Fox for defendant