Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd - [2014] QSC 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd [2014] QSC 249

PARTIES:

LIDIJA ROMIG
(plaintiff)
v
TABCORP HOLDINGS LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4523/10

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2014, 3 April 2014, 10 April 2014

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $213,416.53

COUNSEL:

G J Cross for the plaintiff
R Myers for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Patinos Personal Lawyers for the plaintiff
Kaden Borriss Brisbane for the defendant

The plaintiff is a 51 year old woman who sues for personal injury to her neck, together with psychiatric injury. She was employed part-time (three nights a week) as a roulette dealer at the Treasury Casino at the time of the events which gave rise to her injuries.

The plaintiff was born in Slovenia. She had a university diploma in social work from that country. When she came to Australia her qualifications were recognised and she did work as a social worker for some time. Notwithstanding that, she chose to work dealing roulette at the Treasury Casino from 1995. Part of the work of a dealer is to gather chips used by gamblers and sort them into stacks by colour (value). This was done manually until the year 2000 when the casino installed chipping machines. These machines attached to the part of the table where the dealer was situated. The dealer swept chips which had been played into the mouth of a chute which was at table level. The machine sorted the chips and spat them into a tray of chutes which sat beside the dealer, just under the table. To reach to the bottom of the chutes, the dealer was obliged to reach down below table level. As well, the chute farthest from the dealer was 90 cm from the closest chute – tt 4.64 – 65. The dealer would reach into the chutes, remove a stack of chips, and return them to the table.

I find there was no training given to the plaintiff as to how to use the chipping machine except for a quick demonstration on the casino floor while gamblers waited for the training to finish and the game to begin – t 1.31. This was the plaintiff’s evidence. Mr Stephan, called by the defendant, said he could not recall being given any training – t 4.70. The defendant led no evidence that it trained the plaintiff before she was injured. The plaintiff said she developed her own method of removing chips from the chutes: she stood beside the machine and leant over and down to access the chips. To pick up a stack of chips she held her hand so that her thumb was lower than her fingers. I accept that evidence.

Initial Injury

The plaintiff says that she injured herself one Friday night – 10 September 2004 – when she was working on what was known as a left-hand roulette table. If…

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 Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd

Details

AGLC: Romig v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd [2014] QSC 249
Case: [2014] QSC 249
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr Romig, sought damages from the defendant, Tabcorb Holdings Ltd, for breach of contract and deceit in relation to the sale of a property. The dispute centred on whether the defendant had correctly disclosed the condition of the property and whether the contract was binding.

The primary legal issues revolved around the enforceability of the contract, the duty of disclosure by the vendor, and whether the defendant had acted fraudulently. The court had to determine if the contract was binding and whether the defendant had breached any statutory or common law duties of disclosure. Additionally, the court considered if there was sufficient evidence to establish deceit on the part of the defendant.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the contract was valid and enforceable. However, it was established that the defendant had breached their duty of disclosure as they failed to inform the plaintiff about the property's condition. The court held that the defendant had not acted fraudulently but had been negligent in their disclosure obligations. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $213,416.53, reflecting the difference between the contract price and the property's true value at the time of sale.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $213,416.53

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:	Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd [2014] QSC 249
PARTIES:	LIDIJA ROMIG (plaintiff) v TABCORP HOLDINGS LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	4523/10
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2014, 3 April 2014, 10 April 2014
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $213,416.53
COUNSEL:	G J Cross for the plaintiff R Myers for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Patinos Personal Lawyers for the plaintiff Kaden Borriss Brisbane for the defendant