Palace v RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (in liq)

The case of Palace v RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (in liq) involved a personal injury claim brought by the appellant, Palace, against the respondent, RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (in liq). Palace had sustained injuries while working on a solar farm project in 2018, and the respondent had been the designer and operator of the solar farm. The respondent had also entered into a subcontract with Palace's employer, which contemplated a degree of shared responsibility between the respondent and Palace's employer for the safety of employees such as Palace. Palace mistakenly served a company related to the respondent before being informed that the respondent was the proper respondent to the appellant’s personal injuries claim. The primary judge refused to grant Palace leave to add the respondent to the proceedings under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and also under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as the respondent was in liquidation. Palace appealed the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in refusing Palace leave to add the respondent to the proceedings under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court needed to determine if the appellant had demonstrated that there was a serious question to be tried, that there was a degree of complexity of the legal and factual issues involved in the grant of leave, and that the damages which the appellant may recover was greater than the deductible under the insurance policy. The court also needed to consider if Palace should be granted leave to proceed against the respondent under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as the respondent was in liquidation.

The court found that the primary judge erred in refusing to grant leave to add the respondent to the proceedings. The court held that if, in relation to the application for leave to proceed pursuant to s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the court formed the view that the question of apportionment of any liability as between Mass Solutions and the respondent was a matter for trial, then leave should be granted pursuant to both s 14 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made on 30 November 2020. The court granted Palace leave to add the respondent to its claim under s 14 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court also ordered that Palace must not, without leave of the Court, seek to enforce any judgment he may obtain against the respondent. The respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, and the parties’ costs of the originating application filed 21 October 2020 should be their respective costs in any proceeding commenced by the appellant against the respondent for a claim for personal injuries sustained on 13 February 2018.