Prasad v Ingham's Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2015] QDC 200

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prasad v Ingham’s Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 200

PARTIES:

ROSELYN PRASAD
(plaintiff)

v

INGHAM’S ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 2892/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23, 24 July 2014; 4 December 2014

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury of employee – liability of employer – plantar fasciitis – whether caused by conditions at work – whether alleged features of work proved – whether breach of employer’s duty – whether if no breach injury would probably not have occurred – employer not liable.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – Contract of service – implied term – whether term to be implied that employer will comply with statutory obligations concerning workplace safety.

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 s 37A.

Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis (2010) 240 CLR 111 – applied.
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 – applied.
Driver v Stewart [2001] QCA 444 – cited.
Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2015] QCA 127 – distinguished.
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Aust Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 – applied.

COUNSEL:

G J Cross and A S Katsikalis for the plaintiff (July)
P Hackett and A S Katsikalis for the plaintiff (December)

M T O’Sullivan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Matthew Gibson Legal for the plaintiff

B T Lawyers for the defendant

In early 2010 the plaintiff was a process worker at the defendant’s plant when she developed increasing pain in her feet.[1] By March 2010 her feet were so sore she was unable to continue her work, which she performed standing. She spoke to a supervisor and was referred to the medical centre at the plant, where she was treated with heat packs. She later attended doctors and a podiatrist, and it is common ground that she was found to be suffering from plantar fasciitis. She still has this condition, though her symptoms have abated somewhat after she ceased process work at the defendant’s plant, and received treatment. She is now doing a different type of work, and working only part-time: p 39. She alleged that she developed this condition because of the negligence or breach of contract of the defendant. Liability and quantum are both in issue; in particular, there is an issue as to causation.
[1]Plaintiff p 1-20: this was more than the usual pain at the end of a day’s work: p 1-47.

Facts

The plaintiff originally worked for the defendant from 1994 to 1997, and returned to work in 2000: p 19. From then she was mainly working in a room packing chicken pieces into plastic trays so that they could be wrapped, crated and placed into a cold room for storage until dispatched. She used to work five days a week, 37 hours per week, starting at 6 a.m.: p 20. Each day she worked four sessions of 84 minutes, interspersed with breaks of 10…

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 Prasad v Ingham's Enterprises 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: [2015] QDC 200
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prasad initiated legal proceedings against Ingham's Enterprises Pty Ltd, alleging that the employer was liable for plantar fasciitis he developed due to workplace conditions. The dispute was heard and determined in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the employer was liable for the employee's injury and whether the employer breached their duty by failing to provide a safe working environment. Another aspect of the case involved whether an implied term existed in the employment contract that the employer would comply with statutory obligations concerning workplace safety.

The Fair Work Commission examined whether the conditions of the employee's workplace contributed to the injury, and whether those conditions were adequately proven. The tribunal assessed the employer's adherence to workplace safety laws and whether the injury would likely not have occurred if the employer had not breached their duty. The tribunal found that the employee had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the employer's conditions caused the injury or that there was a breach of duty. The tribunal also determined that an implied term to comply with workplace safety laws was not present in the employment contract. The employer was not found liable for the employee's injury.

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the defendant, Ingham's Enterprises Pty Ltd, finding that the employer was not liable for the employee's injury and that no breach of duty had occurred. No implied term to comply with statutory obligations concerning workplace safety was found in the employment contract. The orders of the tribunal were for judgment to be entered in favour of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendant.

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:	Prasad v Ingham’s Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 200
PARTIES:	ROSELYN PRASAD (plaintiff) v INGHAM’S ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 2892/11
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23, 24 July 2014; 4 December 2014
JUDGE:	McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the defendant.
CATCHWORDS:	EMPLOYMENT LAW – Injury of employee – liability of employer – plantar fasciitis – whether caused by conditions at work – whether alleged features of work proved – whether breach of employer’s duty – whether if no breach injury would probably not have occurred – employer not liable. EMPLOYMENT LAW – Contract of service – implied term – whether term to be implied that employer will comply with statutory obligations concerning workplace safety. Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 s 37A. Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis (2010) 240 CLR 111 – applied. Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 – applied. Driver v Stewart [2001] QCA 444 – cited. Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2015] QCA 127 – distinguished. Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Aust Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 – applied.
COUNSEL:	G J Cross and A S Katsikalis for the plaintiff (July) P Hackett and A S Katsikalis for the plaintiff (December) M T O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Matthew Gibson Legal for the plaintiff B T Lawyers for the defendant