Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd - [2014] QDC 102

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 102

PARTIES:

Beverley Carol Preddy
(Applicant)

and

Bi-Lo Pty Ltd
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

No 176 of 2013

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

08 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 September 2013 (written submissions 13 and 27 September 2013 and 03 October 2013).

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Application granted.

2.The time for commencement of proceedings claiming damages for personal injury by the applicant is extended to 05 July 2013.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs by written submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury to employee – applicant injured in workplace incident – pulling trolley containing trays of meat product – through doorway – trolley tipped, struck her left shoulder and pinned her against stationary trolleys – soft tissue injury

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – applicant did not consult lawyer within limitation period – whether she had knowledge of material facts of incident, injury and consequences within limitation period – applicant subsequently involved in second workplace incident – alleged aggravation of injury caused in first incident – whether reasonable steps taken to ascertain material facts

EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury to employee – previously undisclosed other injury – back injury caused by a fall not related to workplace – whether non-disclosure prejudicial to respondent

LEGISLATION:

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 sections 30 (1) and 31 (2).

CASES:

Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1998] 2 QdR 325; Eldridge v Coles Myer Group Limited [2012] QSC 39; Queensland v Stephenson [2006] 227 ALR 17; Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 QdR 306; Thompson v EP World Australia [2011] QSC 406; N F v Queensland [2005] QCA 110; Healy v Femdale [1993] QCA 210; Stanley-Clarke v Boyle [2013] QCA 75; Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 QdR 431; Fuller v Bunnings Group Limited [2007] QCA 216

COUNSEL:

Ms B Keegan for the Applicant
MJ Liddy for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Applicant
Minter Ellison Solicitors for the Respondent

The applicant Beverley Carol Preddy was employed by the respondent at its supermarket store in Townsville as a meat packer. She suffered injury in two separate workplace incidents in 2007 and 2011.

The workplace incidents

The applicant was injured in a workplace incident on 06 May 2011 (“the second incident”) when unloading 10 to 15 boxes of chickens, each weighing between two and ten kilograms, from a pallet onto a flat top trolley so that they could then be placed into a display case. The job required, firstly lifting the product from a low to a high position; and secondly lifting the product from a high to a low position. The applicant’s left shoulder began to ache and became worse during the day.

The second…

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 Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 102
Case: [2014] QDC 102
Decision Date: 08 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd involved an employee who sustained an injury in the workplace when a trolley she was pulling tipped over, causing her left shoulder to be struck and pinned against another trolley. The matter was heard in the court, which had to decide on issues concerning the limitation of actions and the postponement of the bar for the employee's claim. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the employee's cause of action in respect of her personal injuries was barred by the limitation period, and if not, whether the period could be extended due to the employee's lack of knowledge of the material facts of the incident, the injury, and its consequences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the employee took reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts after a subsequent workplace incident that allegedly aggravated her initial injury.

The court found that the employee did not consult a lawyer within the limitation period, and thus, her cause of action was potentially barred. However, the court examined whether the employee had knowledge of the material facts of the incident, injury, and its consequences within the limitation period. The court noted that the employee had not taken reasonable steps to ascertain these facts, but this was due to her involvement in a second workplace incident which she believed had aggravated her initial injury. The court held that the employee did not have the requisite knowledge of the material facts of the incident, injury, and its consequences within the limitation period, and therefore, the limitation period could be extended.

Consequently, the court granted the employee's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings. The time for commencement of proceedings was extended to 05 July 2013. The court also indicated that it would hear the parties on the issue of costs by written submissions. This decision underscores the importance of knowledge of material facts in determining whether the limitation period for a personal injury claim is postponed, and highlights the need for injured employees to take reasonable steps to ascertain these facts in a timely manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted.

2.The time for commencement of proceedings claiming damages for personal injury by the applicant is extended to 05 July 2013.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs by written submissions.

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:	Preddy v Bi-Lo Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 102
PARTIES:	Beverley Carol Preddy (Applicant) and Bi-Lo Pty Ltd (Respondent)
FILE NO:	No 176 of 2013
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	08 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 September 2013 (written submissions 13 and 27 September 2013 and 03 October 2013).
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Application granted. 2.The time for commencement of proceedings claiming damages for personal injury by the applicant is extended to 05 July 2013. 3. I will hear the parties as to costs by written submissions.
CATCHWORDS:	EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury to employee – applicant injured in workplace incident – pulling trolley containing trays of meat product – through doorway – trolley tipped, struck her left shoulder and pinned her against stationary trolleys – soft tissue injury LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – applicant did not consult lawyer within limitation period – whether she had knowledge of material facts of incident, injury and consequences within limitation period – applicant subsequently involved in second workplace incident – alleged aggravation of injury caused in first incident – whether reasonable steps taken to ascertain material facts EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury to employee – previously undisclosed other injury – back injury caused by a fall not related to workplace – whether non-disclosure prejudicial to respondent
LEGISLATION:	Limitation of Actions Act 1974 sections 30 (1) and 31 (2).
CASES:	Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1998] 2 QdR 325; Eldridge v Coles Myer Group Limited [2012] QSC 39; Queensland v Stephenson [2006] 227 ALR 17; Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 QdR 306; Thompson v EP World Australia [2011] QSC 406; N F v Queensland [2005] QCA 110; Healy v Femdale [1993] QCA 210; Stanley-Clarke v Boyle [2013] QCA 75; Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 QdR 431; Fuller v Bunnings Group Limited [2007] QCA 216
COUNSEL:	Ms B Keegan for the Applicant MJ Liddy for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Applicant Minter Ellison Solicitors for the Respondent