SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Parry v Woolworths Limited [2009] QCA 26
PARTIES:
MERVYN JOHN PARRY
(appellant)
v
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 6685 of 2008
DC No 776 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
20 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 October 2008
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Fraser JA and White AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed
2. Order of Searles DCJ of 17 June 2008 set aside
3. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the amount assessed by the trial judge of $82,327.73
4. Leave granted for both parties to make submissions within 10 days of the judgment date, and in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2005, as to the costs of the trial and the appeal
CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER – where the appellant sustained a lower back injury whilst assisting another employee to lift a tub of meat in the course of his employment – where appellant had sustained back injuries prior to this particular incident – where the appellant required surgery for an acute prolapsed disc injury approximately five months after this particular incident – whether the appellant failed to prove that there was a risk of injury in lifting the tub of meat – whether the ‘risk of injury’ referred to in s 28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 includes a risk that is ‘trivial’ – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent had not breached its statutory duty under s 28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 – whether the trial judge erred in fact in finding that the acute prolapsed disc injury was not sustained when the appellant assisted the other employee to lift the tub of meat
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT AND AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION – whether the trial judge erred in construing a medical report as meaning that the appellant’s working life had not been shortened by the incident in question – whether the award for general damages was inadequate
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – COSTS – GENERALLY – where the trial was adjourned when the appellant applied for leave to file a reply pleading estoppel – where the trial judge concluded that the adjournment was due to the appellant’s unreasonable delay in pleading estoppel and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away under s 316(4) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – where the appellant contended that his delay was in fact due to the late disclosure of a report by the respondent – whether the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs thrown away by the adjournment
ESTOPPEL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded that the respondent was estopped from claiming that the…
Continue reading Parry v Woolworths Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Parry v Woolworths Limited [2009] QCA 26
- Case
- [2009] QCA 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in several respects. Firstly, the court held that the trial judge had incorrectly interpreted the meaning of 'risk of injury' under s 28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, which includes a risk that is 'trivial'. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had erred in fact in finding that Parry's acute prolapsed disc injury was not sustained when he assisted the other employee to lift the tub of meat. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in construing a medical report as meaning that Parry's working life had not been shortened by the incident in question, and that the award for general damages was inadequate. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that Parry had failed to prove the essential elements of the claimed estoppel and that the adjournment of the trial was due to Parry's unreasonable delay in pleading estoppel. The Court of Appeal held that the adjournment was, in fact, due to the late disclosure of a report by Woolworths, and thus the appellant should not bear the costs thrown away by the adjournment.
The Court of Appeal allowed Parry's appeal and set aside the order of Searles DCJ of 17 June 2008. The appellate court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount assessed by the trial judge of $82,327.73. The court granted leave for both parties to make submissions within 10 days of the judgment date, in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2005, as to the costs of the trial and the appeal. The court did not address the issue of costs directly in the summary but indicated that it would be addressed in the submissions by both parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed
2. Order of Searles DCJ of 17 June 2008 set aside
3. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the amount assessed by the trial judge of $82,327.73
4. Leave granted for both parties to make submissions within 10 days of the judgment date, and in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2005, as to the costs of the trial and the appeal
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.