Pols v AME Products Pty Ltd - [2013] QDC 190

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pols v AME Products Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 190

PARTIES:

MICHAEL WILLIAM CORNELIS POLS
(Plaintiff)

AND

AME PRODUCTS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1966 of 2011

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 – 5 and 18 December 2012

JUDGE:

Devereaux SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the defendant

2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis from 18 May 2011

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW FOR INJURY AT WORK - where plaintiff employed in the defendant’s warehouse – where plaintiff assaulted at work by another employee approximately five weeks after starting work for the defendant - where plaintiff seeks damages for breach of employment contract and negligence – whether the defendant should have foreseen, and taken steps to protect the plaintiff from the risk of injury in the workplace

Antoniak v The Commonwealth (1962) 4 FLR 454

Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29

Founders v Miller [2007] NSWCA 238

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1957] 2 Q.B. 352

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 149

Serra v Couran Cove Management Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 130

Wolters v the University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298

COUNSEL:

S Anderson for the Plaintiff

Morton for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the Plaintiff

McInnes Wilson for the Defendant

The plaintiff was employed in the defendant’s warehouse from 8 February 2010. He had found out about the job from Stephen Gell, a person he met at the local RSL Club. Gell worked for the company. They worked side by side as packers. On 17 March 2010, about 5 weeks after the plaintiff started work with the defendant, Gell assaulted the plaintiff, causing some physical injury and, eventually, a significant psychiatric injury. The plaintiff seeks damages for the injuries, claiming breaches of the employment contract and negligence.

It is not in dispute that Gell assaulted the plaintiff. The issue is whether the defendant should have foreseen, and taken steps to protect the plaintiff from, the risk of injury constituted by Gell’s presence in the workplace. The extent of injury caused by any breach by the defendant is also in issue.

The defendant company and its premises

Bruce Mendham, his wife Wilma and their son, Warwick, were the owners and directors of the defendant. They all worked at the premises, which were at Brendale. A reception area and the receiving/dispatch bay were on the ground floor of the warehouse. There were offices upstairs. Peter McKewen was the general manager of the company. The plaintiff did not agree that Mr McKewen was regularly on the warehouse floor. Paul Simpson was the Brisbane branch manager. He was regularly in the plaintiff’s working area. Bruce Mendham suffered a stroke in April 2012.[1]
[1] Affidavit of…

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 Pols v AME Products 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: [2013] QDC 190
Decision Date: 19 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pols v AME Products Pty Ltd was heard by the court where the plaintiff, Pols, alleged that he was assaulted by a colleague approximately five weeks after commencing employment at the defendant's warehouse. Pols sought damages for the breach of his employment contract and for negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant, AME Products Pty Ltd, contended that it had no liability for the assault as it could not have foreseen the incident and had taken reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide a safe workplace and if the defendant could have reasonably foreseen the risk of injury from an assault by a colleague. The court was required to determine if the defendant had breached its common law duty to the plaintiff and if there were any mitigating factors that could absolve the defendant of liability.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the defendant was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the defendant had taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe workplace, including conducting background checks on employees and implementing policies to prevent violence. The court found that the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the specific risk of an assault by a colleague and that the defendant's actions were sufficient to discharge its duty of care. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the action, assessed on the standard basis from 18 May 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant

2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis from 18 May 2011

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:	Pols v AME Products Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 190
PARTIES:	MICHAEL WILLIAM CORNELIS POLS (Plaintiff) AND AME PRODUCTS PTY LTD (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1966 of 2011
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 – 5 and 18 December 2012
JUDGE:	Devereaux SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the defendant 2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis from 18 May 2011
CATCHWORDS:	EMPLOYMENT LAW – LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW FOR INJURY AT WORK - where plaintiff employed in the defendant’s warehouse – where plaintiff assaulted at work by another employee approximately five weeks after starting work for the defendant - where plaintiff seeks damages for breach of employment contract and negligence – whether the defendant should have foreseen, and taken steps to protect the plaintiff from the risk of injury in the workplace Antoniak v The Commonwealth (1962) 4 FLR 454 Finn v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [1997] 1 Qd R 29 Founders v Miller [2007] NSWCA 238 Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1957] 2 Q.B. 352 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 149 Serra v Couran Cove Management Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 130 Wolters v the University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298
COUNSEL:	S Anderson for the Plaintiff Morton for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the Plaintiff McInnes Wilson for the Defendant