Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited - [2018] QDC 143

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited [2018] QDC 143

PARTIES:

STEPHEN RITCHIE
(applicant)

v

IKEA PTY LIMITED
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2587 of 2018

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 July 2018

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The applicant be given leave to commence proceedings against the respondent pursuant to section 43(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002.

2.   The respondent’s cross-application be dismissed.

3.   The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the applications.

4.   I direct the parties to confer to provide a draft of agreed directions for the further conduct of the proceedings by 4pm today.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STATUTES, REGULATIONS ETC-APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT IN ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – where the applicant was injured in a workplace incident and claimed compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant was placed on a return to work program hosted by the respondent – where the applicant suffered further injury in the course of undertaking the return to work program with the respondent – where the applicant made a further claim for compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant’s solicitors served a notice of claim pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) on the respondent – whether a return to work host employer is an employer under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) ss 6(2)(c), 43
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 10, 32, 35(1)(e), 228, 237, 239(2)

Johnson v Laing O’Rourke (BMC) Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 10, cited
Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88, cited

COUNSEL:
D L K Atkinson for the applicant
N J Pearce for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Richardson & Lyons for the applicant
Clyde & Co for the respondent

Stephen Ritchie seeks damages for personal injury in relation to an accident that occurred on 4 August 2015. He has served a Notice of Claim pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (‘the PIP Act’). Expiry of the limitation period is imminent.

Proceedings cannot be commenced by Mr Ritchie because he is yet to comply with some of the requirements of the PIP Act. Notably, there is yet to be a conference between the parties as envisaged by s 36. There has been no exchange of mandatory final offers as required by s 39 of the PIP Act.

The court has the power under s 43 of the PIP Act to give leave to start the proceeding. The order giving leave may be made on conditions the court considers necessary or appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case.

The respondent has filed a cross-application for an order that the applicant be precluded from continuing his claim under the PIP Act, having regard to section 6(2)(c) of that statute. The application seeks an abridgement of time for…

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 Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited [2018] QDC 143
Case: [2018] QDC 143
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where the applicant, Ritchie, sought compensation for injuries sustained in two separate incidents. The first incident occurred in Ritchie's workplace, and compensation was claimed under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Following the initial injury, Ritchie was placed on a return to work program hosted by Ikea, where a second injury occurred. Ritchie subsequently sought further compensation under the same statute for the second injury. The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether Ikea, as the host employer of the return to work program, was considered an employer under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions and determined that a return to work host employer could indeed be considered an employer for the purposes of the act. This interpretation was based on the legislative intent to provide comprehensive coverage for employees injured in the course of their employment, including those on a return to work program. The tribunal further noted that the statutory scheme was designed to offer protection to employees regardless of the specific circumstances of their injury, as long as it occurred during employment activities. As Ritchie's second injury was sustained while participating in the return to work program, it fell within the scope of compensable incidents under the act.

Consequently, the tribunal granted Ritchie leave to commence proceedings against Ikea, dismissed Ikea's cross-application, and ordered Ikea to pay Ritchie's costs associated with the applications. The tribunal also directed the parties to confer and provide a draft of agreed directions for the further conduct of the proceedings by a specified time. This decision underscores the importance of a broad interpretation of employer liability under workers' compensation legislation to ensure adequate protection for injured employees.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant be given leave to commence proceedings against the respondent pursuant to section 43(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002.

2. The respondent’s cross-application be dismissed.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the applications.

4. I direct the parties to confer to provide a draft of agreed directions for the further conduct of the proceedings by 4pm today.

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:	Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited [2018] QDC 143
PARTIES:	STEPHEN RITCHIE (applicant) v IKEA PTY LIMITED (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2587 of 2018
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 July 2018
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:	1. *The applicant be given leave to commence proceedings against the respondent pursuant to section 43(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act* 2002. 2. The respondent’s cross-application be dismissed. 3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the applications. 4. I direct the parties to confer to provide a draft of agreed directions for the further conduct of the proceedings by 4pm today.**
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STATUTES, REGULATIONS ETC-APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT IN ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – where the applicant was injured in a workplace incident and claimed compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant was placed on a return to work program hosted by the respondent – where the applicant suffered further injury in the course of undertaking the return to work program with the respondent – where the applicant made a further claim for compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the applicant’s solicitors served a notice of claim pursuant to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) on the respondent – whether a return to work host employer is an employer under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) ss 6(2)(c), 43 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 10, 32, 35(1)(e), 228, 237, 239(2) Johnson v Laing O’Rourke (BMC) Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 10, cited Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88, cited
COUNSEL:	D L K Atkinson for the applicant N J Pearce for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Richardson & Lyons for the applicant Clyde & Co for the respondent