Legal Research
Cases
Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd

Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 July 2000 17 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rigato Farms P/L v Ridolfi [2000] QCA 292

PARTIES: RIGATO FARMS PTY LTD ACN 010 025 448
(defendant/appellant)
v
KENNETH FRANK RIDOLFI
(plaintiff/respondent)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11448 of 1999
SC No 153 of 1998
DC No 225 of 1995

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General civil appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 28 July 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 21 July 2000

JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Williams J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – OTHER MATTERS – application to withdraw admissions refused by trial judge – application made by appellant in course of respondent’s action for damages for injuries sustained in course of employment – admissions made by operation of UCPR 189 by appellant’s solicitors’ failure to respond to notice to admit facts – application brought by new solicitors following change of appellant’s solicitors – no sworn evidence to explain failure to respond to notice – whether ground for interfering with judge’s discretion established

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – purpose of procedural rules, particularly UCPR – whether failure to respond excusable in light of initial reasonable latitude in compliance allowed under Practice Direction No 10 of 1999

EMPLOYMENT LAW – THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE AND RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIABILITIES AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYEE AT COMMON LAW – EVIDENCE AND ONUS OF PROOF – whether not permitting withdrawal unfairly deprived appellant of opportunity to raise significant issues as to causation at trial

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 5(1), r 189(1), r 189(2), r 189(3), r 189(4)
Practice Direction No 10 of 1999

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, referred to
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 155, referred to
Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 738, referred to
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 ChD 700, considered
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Orazio [1999] QSC 354, No 9208 of 1996, 30 November 1999, referred to
H Clark (Doncaster) Ltd v Wilkinson [1965] Ch 694, distinguished
House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499, followed
Queensland Trustees Limited v Fawckner [1964] QdR 153, considered
Re Brighton Club & Norfolk Hotel Co Ltd (1865) 35 Beav 204; (1865) 55 ER 873, referred to

COUNSEL: RAI Myers for the appellant
JA Griffin QC, with AP Simpson for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Bradley & Co for the appellant
Corsetti Lawyers for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: The respondent brought a claim in the District Court against the appellant for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty, in relation…

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 Ridolfi v Rigato Farms 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: [2000] QCA 292
Decision Date: 28 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd involved an appeal by the plaintiff, Ridolfi, against the decision of the trial judge to deny an application to withdraw admissions made by the plaintiff's former solicitors. The plaintiff was pursuing a claim for damages for injuries sustained during the course of their employment against the defendant, Rigato Farms. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain facts in the proceedings and the implications of the plaintiff's former solicitors' failure to respond to a notice to admit facts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge's refusal to permit the withdrawal of admissions was justified and whether the failure to respond to the notice to admit facts was excusable under the circumstances. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's discretion to refuse the withdrawal of admissions was properly exercised, considering the procedural rules and the purpose of such rules. Additionally, the court assessed whether denying the withdrawal of admissions unfairly deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to raise significant issues concerning causation at trial.

The court found that the trial judge's decision to deny the application to withdraw admissions was appropriate. The plaintiff's new solicitors did not provide any sworn evidence to explain the failure to respond to the notice, which was a critical aspect of the court's assessment. The court emphasised that the purpose of procedural rules, particularly the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR), is to ensure that cases are resolved efficiently and fairly. The court also noted that while there is an initial reasonable latitude allowed for compliance with these rules, this does not absolve parties from the consequences of failing to meet procedural requirements. Furthermore, the court concluded that denying the withdrawal of admissions did not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff's case, as the plaintiff still had the opportunity to present their arguments on causation.

The court dismissed the appeal, ordering that costs be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed.

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:	Rigato Farms P/L v Ridolfi [2000] QCA 292
PARTIES:	RIGATO FARMS PTY LTD ACN 010 025 448 (defendant/appellant) v KENNETH FRANK RIDOLFI (plaintiff/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11448 of 1999 SC No 153 of 1998 DC No 225 of 1995
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General civil appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 July 2000
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Williams J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – OTHER MATTERS – application to withdraw admissions refused by trial judge – application made by appellant in course of respondent’s action for damages for injuries sustained in course of employment – admissions made by operation of UCPR 189 by appellant’s solicitors’ failure to respond to notice to admit facts – application brought by new solicitors following change of appellant’s solicitors – no sworn evidence to explain failure to respond to notice – whether ground for interfering with judge’s discretion established PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – purpose of procedural rules, particularly UCPR – whether failure to respond excusable in light of initial reasonable latitude in compliance allowed under Practice Direction No 10 of 1999 EMPLOYMENT LAW – THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE AND RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIABILITIES AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR INJURY TO EMPLOYEE AT COMMON LAW – EVIDENCE AND ONUS OF PROOF – whether not permitting withdrawal unfairly deprived appellant of opportunity to raise significant issues as to causation at trial Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 5(1), r 189(1), r 189(2), r 189(3), r 189(4) Practice Direction No 10 of 1999 Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, referred to Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 155, referred to Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 738, referred to Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 ChD 700, considered Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Orazio [1999] QSC 354, No 9208 of 1996, 30 November 1999, referred to H Clark (Doncaster) Ltd v Wilkinson [1965] Ch 694, distinguished House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499, followed Queensland Trustees Limited v Fawckner [1964] QdR 153, considered Re Brighton Club & Norfolk Hotel Co Ltd (1865) 35 Beav 204; (1865) 55 ER 873, referred to
COUNSEL:	RAI Myers for the appellant JA Griffin QC, with AP Simpson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bradley & Co for the appellant Corsetti Lawyers for the respondent