SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QSC 293
PARTIES:
KAREN MICHELLE REDDOCK
(plaintiff)
v
ST&T PTY LTD (ACN 109 724 594)
(first defendant)
AND
BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LIMITED (ACN 009 671 809)
(second defendant)
FILE NO:
BS 4144 of 2020
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 January 2023 (reasons delivered on 19 December 2022)
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
7-10 February 2022
JUDGE:
Jackson J
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $633,253.53 clear of the WorkCover refund of $30,699.42.
2. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $727,133.81.
3. It is declared pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 that liability in respect of the Plaintiff's damages be apportioned 50 per cent against the First Defendant and 50 per cent against the Second Defendant.
4. It is further ordered that:
a. Should the First Defendant pay the said sum of $633,253.53 clear of the WorkCover refund of $30,699.42 to the Plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $363,566.91 from the Second Defendant whose liability to the Plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $363,566.91 shall be discharged by such recovery.
b. Should the Second Defendant pay the said sum of $727,133.81 to the Plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $331,976.48 from the First Defendant, whose liability to the Plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $331,976.48 shall be discharged by such recovery.
5. The parties provide written submissions on costs within seven (7) days.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH –GENERALLY – where the first defendant employed the plaintiff as a concrete delivery truck driver – where the first defendant supplied trucks and drivers to the second defendant – where the plaintiff was subject to the instructions of the second defendant who had operational control of her deliveries – where the plaintiff injured her hand operating a swivel chute on a concrete truck – where the first defendant instructed the plaintiff to contact both defendants if she thought something was not safe – whether the first defendant employer breached its duty of care by failing to have a safe system of work against a foreseeable risk
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – AT COMMON LAW – GENERALLY – where the second defendant did not employ the plaintiff but had operational control over the plaintiff – where an employee of the second defendant unsuccessfully attempted to repair a faulty part that subsequently caused the plaintiff’s injury – where that employee required the plaintiff to complete another delivery despite knowing of the faulty part – whether the second defendant breached its duty of care
DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY –…
Continue reading Reddock v St&T Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Reddock v St&T Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 293
- Case
- [2022] QSC 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case centred on whether the first defendant breached its duty of care by not providing a safe system of work and whether the second defendant breached its duty of care by requiring the plaintiff to complete a delivery despite knowing of a faulty part on the truck. The court also had to determine whether the contribution of either party should be higher given the different assessment of damages.
The court held that the first defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work, and that the second defendant breached its duty of care by requiring the plaintiff to complete a delivery despite knowing of the faulty part. The court apportioned liability equally between the two defendants. The plaintiff was awarded damages against both defendants, with the First Defendant ordered to pay $633,253.53 clear of the WorkCover refund of $30,699.42 and the Second Defendant ordered to pay $727,133.81. The court also ordered that if either defendant paid the full amount of damages to the plaintiff, it could recover contribution from the other defendant. The parties were required to provide written submissions on costs within seven days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $633,253.53 clear of the WorkCover refund of $30,699.42.
2. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $727,133.81.
3. It is declared pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 that liability in respect of the Plaintiff's damages be apportioned 50 per cent against the First Defendant and 50 per cent against the Second Defendant.
4. It is further ordered that:
a. Should the First Defendant pay the said sum of $633,253.53 clear of the WorkCover refund of $30,699.42 to the Plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $363,566.91 from the Second Defendant whose liability to the Plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $363,566.91 shall be discharged by such recovery.
b. Should the Second Defendant pay the said sum of $727,133.81 to the Plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $331,976.48 from the First Defendant, whose liability to the Plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $331,976.48 shall be discharged by such recovery.
5. The parties provide written submissions on costs within seven (7) days.
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.