Ross v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd - [2022] VSCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2021 0100

JOANN ROSS	Applicant
v
GRUMA OCEANIA PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, NIALL and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 May 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 87
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Ross v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd (County Court of Victoria, Judge Tsalamandris, 29 July 2021)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Workplace injury – Plaintiff suffered fall at work – Jury verdict – Jury answered ‘no’ to question whether there was negligence on part of defendant in respect of plaintiff’s fall – Whether open to jury not to be satisfied that defendant was negligent in respect of fall – Whether jury’s verdict was one which no reasonable jury could reach – Jury’s verdict not one which no reasonable jury could reach – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Workplace injury – Psychiatric injury – Jury verdict – Jury answered ‘yes’ to question whether there was negligence on part of defendant in respect of plaintiff’s return to work, then answered ‘no’ to question whether that negligence was a cause of psychiatric injury to plaintiff – Causation – Whether jury’s answer of ‘no’ was one which no reasonable jury could reach – Jury’s verdict not one which no reasonable jury could reach – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A G Uren QC with Mr C E Hangay	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms M Britbart QC with Mr R Kumar	Russell Kennedy

BEACH JA
NIALL JA
KENNEDY JA:

Between December 2009 and July 2013, Joann Ross (‘the plaintiff’) was employed by Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd (‘the defendant’). Prior to December 2009, the plaintiff had been employed with the defendant through an agency. The defendant manufactures tortillas and tacos. The plaintiff worked mainly on the tortilla line, although she also worked at times on the taco line. She worked the night shift. There were about 30 people who worked on the tortilla line, and about 20 people who worked on the taco line — making a total of 50 employees who worked on the production line at any one time.

On 26 July 2012, the plaintiff suffered a fall at work. In the proceeding below, commenced in January 2020, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for injuries she claimed she sustained as a result of the fall (‘the fall claim’) and subsequent psychiatric injuries which she claimed were the result of bullying, intimidation and harassment during her return to work in the period April to July 2013 (‘the return to work claim’). The plaintiff alleged that these injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant, its employees and agents.

The plaintiff’s proceeding was heard in the County Court before a judge and jury of six, over 14 days, in July 2021. The parties agreed on the terms of the questions to be asked of the jury. Relevantly, those questions…

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 Ross v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ross v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 87
Case: [2022] VSCA 87
Decision Date: 13 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ross v Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Ross, brought an action for damages against the defendant, Gruma Oceania Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained at work. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a fall at work due to the negligence of the defendant and subsequently developed a psychiatric injury upon returning to work.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the jury's verdict that the defendant was not negligent in respect of the plaintiff's fall could be justified, and whether the jury's finding that the defendant's negligence was not a cause of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was one which no reasonable jury could reach. The court needed to determine whether the jury's verdict was open to them and if it was one that no reasonable jury could have reached.

The court held that the jury's verdict that the defendant was not negligent in respect of the plaintiff's fall was one that was open to the jury and therefore not one which no reasonable jury could reach. The court similarly found that the jury's verdict that the defendant's negligence was not a cause of the plaintiff's psychiatric injury was also one that was open to the jury. Consequently, the jury's verdict was not one which no reasonable jury could reach. The court granted leave to appeal on the first issue but dismissed the appeal, while refusing the application for leave to appeal on the second issue.

Orders