Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd - [2009] QSC 340

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 340

PARTIES:

ALLAN GREGORY OLIVER
(applicant)
v
MULP PTY LTD (ACN 082 181 708) trading as ST GEORGE HOTEL & MOTEL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10963 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 October 2009

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

The court will hear the parties on an appropriate order.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURIES – PRACTICE – DISCLOSURE – Where applicant injured in physical altercation outside a hotel – Where applicant brought an action against the hotel under PIPA – Where applicant sought information from the respondent under PIPA provisions – Where respondent failed to provide information – Whether information sought is directly relevant to matters in issue in the applicant’s claim – Whether the information sought directly concerns facts or circumstances to which the occurrence of the incident may be attributed – meaning of incident.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 27

Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading [2008] 1 Qd R 276

COUNSEL:

RC Morton for the respondent
V E Jenner (solicitor)

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
Moray & Agnew Solicitors for the respondent

Allan Oliver (the applicant) seeks an order under s 35 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (“PIPA”) that Mulp Pty Ltd (the respondent) provide the information requested by him in a letter of 21 July 2009.

On about 10 December 2008 the applicant served a notice of claim, given pursuant to PIPA, on the respondent. It alleges that an incident occurred on 7 January 2006 and the following description is given:

“9. GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT
The Claimant was a patron at the St George Hotel Motel (‘the Hotel’). At approximately 12.30am he was involved in an altercation with another patron inside the Hotel. Shortly thereafter he was involved in a physical altercation with the same patron immediately outside the entrance to the Hotel and viciously assaulted in the course of the altercation.”

The following additional information was also given:

“17. DETAILS OF THE PERSON THAT CAUSED THE INCIDENT.
Surname/Family Name:   Mulp Pty Ltd trading as St George Hotel & Motel
Given Name:
Home Address:            c/- Cranstoun & Hussein,
Level 2
102 Adelaide Street
Brisbane                 Postcode: 4000

Contact Telephone Number: Unknown
18. DETAIL THE REASONS WHY THE INJURED PERSON BELIEVES THAT PERSON CAUSED THE INCIDENT
The reasons must particularly identify the step, process or act/s of the person that caused the incident and the link to the named respondent (if different to the person named in response to Q17):
(i)Failed to employ or retain an adequate number of security officers taking into account the size of the premises, the number of patrons likely to attend the premises and the history of physical altercations occurring at the Hotel,
(ii)Failed to take any or any reasonable steps to ensure that the security officer employed by it was appropriately qualified, experienced and…

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 Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 340
Case: [2009] QSC 340
Decision Date: 5 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd, the applicant, Oliver, was involved in a physical altercation outside a hotel and sustained injuries. He brought an action against the hotel under the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (NSW). In this proceeding, Oliver sought information from Mulp Pty Ltd, the respondent, under the act's disclosure requirements. The respondent failed to provide the requested information, leading to the applicant’s application for an order to compel disclosure.

The court was required to determine whether the information sought by Oliver was directly relevant to the matters in issue in his claim and whether it directly concerned facts or circumstances to which the occurrence of the incident might be attributed. The court also needed to interpret the meaning of "incident" within the context of the act.

The court found that the information Oliver sought was directly relevant to his claim and directly concerned facts or circumstances related to the incident. The court interpreted the term "incident" to encompass not only the immediate physical altercation but also the surrounding circumstances and any contributing factors. Consequently, the court ruled that the information sought was pertinent to the applicant’s case and ordered the respondent to provide the information. The court will hear the parties on an appropriate order to enforce this ruling.

Orders

Orders of the court

The court will hear the parties on an appropriate order.

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:	Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 340
PARTIES:	ALLAN GREGORY OLIVER (applicant) v MULP PTY LTD (ACN 082 181 708) trading as ST GEORGE HOTEL & MOTEL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 10963 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 October 2009
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	The court will hear the parties on an appropriate order.
CATCHWORDS:	PERSONAL INJURIES – PRACTICE – DISCLOSURE – Where applicant injured in physical altercation outside a hotel – Where applicant brought an action against the hotel under PIPA – Where applicant sought information from the respondent under PIPA provisions – Where respondent failed to provide information – Whether information sought is directly relevant to matters in issue in the applicant’s claim – Whether the information sought directly concerns facts or circumstances to which the occurrence of the incident may be attributed – meaning of incident. Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 27 Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading [2008] 1 Qd R 276
COUNSEL:	RC Morton for the respondent V E Jenner (solicitor)
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the applicant Moray & Agnew Solicitors for the respondent