Sayers v Hanson t/as Alguard Security Services

[2011] QSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sayers v Hanson t/as Alguard Security Services [2011] QSC 70

PARTIES:

PETER ANTHONY SAYERS
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
ALAN EDWARD HANSON trading as ALGUARD SECURITY SERVICES

(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 11261 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT: 

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2011

JUDGE:

Chief Justice

ORDER:

1. That paras 5 – 7 of the amended statement of claim be struck out;

2. That the plaintiff have leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim within 14 days; and

3. That the costs of and incidental to the defendant’s application filed 15 March 2011 be the defendant’s costs in the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS – EFFECT OF INACCURACY, DELAY OR FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff sues employer for damages for negligence and breach of contract – where security guard employee discovered deceased body and thereafter suffered psychiatric illness – where application for compensation to WorkCover Queensland and notice of claim for damages required by Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 state specific date and time of injury and that it did not occur over period of time – where pleadings allege subsequent harassment and intimidation by employer – whether subsequent alleged harassment should be considered a separate ‘event’ within the meaning of the statute – whether the failure to comply with pre-court statutory procedures in relation to the alleged harassment excludes that from plaintiff’s allowable claim for damages – whether paragraphs alleging employer harassment should be struck out

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 31(1), s 275, s 237(1)(a)(i), s 258(1)(b), s 295

 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 111(1)(b)(i), s 111(1)(b)(ii)

Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2006] 2 Qd R 220; [2005] QCA 406, cited

Phipps v Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Ltd and Anor [2007] 2 Qd R 555; [2007] QCA 130, considered

COUNSEL:

G W Diehm SC for the applicant/defendant

L Willson for the respondent/plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Mullins Lawyers for the applicant/defendant

Parker Simmonds Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff

1. CHIEF JUSTICE: The defendant seeks under Rule 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, or the inherent jurisdiction of the court, an order striking out paras 5, 6 and 7 of the amended statement of claim.

1. The plaintiff sues for damages for negligence and breach of contract in respect of personal injuries and consequent loss sustained in the course of his employment by the defendant.  Employed as a security guard, he discovered a body which had fallen from a high-rise building, and suffered a consequent psychiatric illness (para 4).  In paras 5-7 of the pleading, he alleges that not having returned to work, he was  subjected to harassment and intimidation by the defendant about when he would be  returning to work.  In para 8, the plaintiff attributes his psychiatric illness to…