Schmidt v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd - [2004] QDC 473

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schmidt v. Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 473

PARTIES:

Benjamin Lee Schmidt (Applicant)

v

Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 011 062 338) (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2674 of 2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Chamber Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 August 2004

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

1.It is declared that in respect of the applicant’s injuries set out in Item 41 of his Notice of Claim for damages dated 28 May 2004 the inclusion of the reference to “scarring” resulting from laceration did not preclude the Notice of Claim from complying with s.280 of the Workcover Qld Act 1996;

2.That the respondent comply with its obligations under s.282(2) of the Act within 14 days of the date of this order and thereafter otherwise comply with Chapter 5 of the Act;

3.That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application as agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court Scale.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – personal injury – claim for common law damages – “scarring” resulting from laceration – whether Notice of Claim a complying notice under s.280 of Workcover Qld Act 1996.

Workcover Queensland Act 1996 ss.197, 203, 253, 278, 279, 280, 282(2) and 291.

Barrass v. BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 364.

Lau v. WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244.

COUNSEL:

Mr F H Dawson for the applicant.

Mr G J Cross for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Jonathan C Whiting & Associates for the applicant.

Abbott Tout Lawyers for the respondent.

By leave, at the hearing of the original application, the applicant filed an amended application seeking various orders including the following:

1. A declaration that the applicant’s Notice of Claim dated 28 May 2004 to the respondent under s.280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“the Act”) is a complying Notice of Claim under that section;

2. That the respondent comply with its obligations under s.282(2) of the Act and thereafter otherwise comply with the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Act;

3. A declaration that the applicant has been assessed in relation to his scarring pursuant to s.197 of the Act; and

3A. That the respondent give the applicant a Notice of Assessment in relation to his scarring pursuant to s.203 of the Act.

The court’s power to deal with a party’s failure to comply with Chapter 5 of the Act entitled “Access to Damages” is pursuant to s.291 of the Act.

The respondent is a self-insurer under Chapter 2 Part 5 of the Act.

History of Claim

The applicant, was a meat slicer employed by the respondent and sustained a laceration to his left upper forearm (“the injury”) during the course of his employment on 2 December 2002.

He claimed workers’ compensation for the injury under the Act and his claim was accepted by the respondent.

He now wishes to pursue a claim for common law damages in respect of the injury.

Before a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Schmidt v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QDC 473
Decision Date: 1 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Schmidt v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd, the applicant sought common law damages for injuries sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on whether the applicant’s Notice of Claim was a complying notice under the Workcover Queensland Act 1996. Specifically, the applicant argued that the inclusion of a reference to "scarring" resulting from laceration did not render the Notice of Claim non-compliant. The respondent contested this, asserting that the notice was defective and thus, they were not bound by the statutory obligations.

The court was tasked with determining whether the inclusion of the term "scarring" in the Notice of Claim affected its compliance with section 280 of the Act. The key issue was whether the statutory requirements for a valid notice were met, considering the additional reference to scarring. The court examined the legislative framework and the applicant's entitlement to claim damages under both common law and the statutory scheme.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the reference to "scarring" did not detract from the compliance of the Notice of Claim. The court held that the statutory requirements were fulfilled, and therefore, the notice was valid. Consequently, the respondent was directed to comply with its obligations under the Act and to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

The court declared that the applicant's claim regarding the scarring resulting from laceration did not render the Notice of Claim non-compliant with the statutory requirements. The respondent was ordered to adhere to its obligations under the Act and to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.It is declared that in respect of the applicant’s injuries set out in Item 41 of his Notice of Claim for damages dated 28 May 2004 the inclusion of the reference to “scarring” resulting from laceration did not preclude the Notice of Claim from complying with s.280 of the Workcover Qld Act 1996;

2.That the respondent comply with its obligations under s.282(2) of the Act within 14 days of the date of this order and thereafter otherwise comply with Chapter 5 of the Act;

3.That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application as agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court Scale.

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:	Schmidt v. Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 473
PARTIES:	Benjamin Lee Schmidt (Applicant) v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 011 062 338) (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2674 of 2004
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Chamber Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	1 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 August 2004
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	1.It is declared that in respect of the applicant’s injuries set out in Item 41 of his Notice of Claim for damages dated 28 May 2004 the inclusion of the reference to “scarring” resulting from laceration did not preclude the Notice of Claim from complying with s.280 of the Workcover Qld Act 1996; 2.That the respondent comply with its obligations under s.282(2) of the Act within 14 days of the date of this order and thereafter otherwise comply with Chapter 5 of the Act; 3.That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application as agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court Scale.
CATCHWORDS:	Application – personal injury – claim for common law damages – “scarring” resulting from laceration – whether Notice of Claim a complying notice under s.280 of Workcover Qld Act 1996. Workcover Queensland Act 1996 ss.197, 203, 253, 278, 279, 280, 282(2) and 291. Barrass v. BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 364. Lau v. WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244.
COUNSEL:	Mr F H Dawson for the applicant. Mr G J Cross for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Jonathan C Whiting & Associates for the applicant. Abbott Tout Lawyers for the respondent.