Roe v Link-up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Roe v Link-up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation [2012] QDC 36

PARTIES:

DELMA ROE
(Applicant/Plaintiff)

AND

LINK-UP (QLD) ABORIGINAL CORPORATION ABN 36 073 956 496
(Respondent/Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1920/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

21 December 2011

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – Application by the Plaintiff for further and better particulars - Whether through a Reply filed by the Plaintiff there has been a deemed admission by operation of UCPR 166 – Whether the application should fail even if there is no deemed admission.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 150, 157, 161, 166
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003, s 318C

CASES:

Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor No 2 [2005] QSC 285.
Melco Engineering Pty Ltd v Eriez Magnetics Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 198.
Thiess Pty Ltd v FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 209.

COUNSEL:

C. Newton on behalf of the Applicant/Plaintiff.
G. Diehm SC on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of the Applicant/Plaintiff.
Gadens Lawyers on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant.

Introduction

1. In this matter the Plaintiff applies for further and better particulars of paragraph 9(a) of the Defence filed in these proceedings.

1. On 3 June 2011, the Plaintiff filed a Claim for damages for psychiatric injury alleged to have been occasioned to her in the course of her employment with the Defendant.

1. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note a description given by the Defendant’s counsel as to the effect of the Statement of Claim as having:

“… as its core allegations that the plaintiff was improperly treated by the defendant or representatives of it, in particular with respect to the appointment process of a director of the corporation, the employment of persons in relationships with directors of it, a confrontation between a director and another staff member on the one part and the plaintiff on the other part, the non-responsiveness of the Chairman of the Board to the plaintiff’s complaints about that confrontation and the decision by the defendant to conduct an audit of certain aspects of its finances.”[1]

[1]This is understood to be a précis of the effect of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim, in particular.

1. In order to put the competing arguments raised on the application in some proper context, it is necessary to have regard to some particular aspects of the pleadings.

1. In paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff pleads as follows:

“6.The injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, particulars of which allegation are as follows:

(a)failing to provide a safe place of work;

(b)failing to provide a safe system of work;

(c)failing to support her as the CEO, particularly by Watson, when a Board member, Lui, was behaving inappropriately;

(d)failing by its directors and in particular Watson and Lui to comply with its…