Schultz v William Allen - [2003] QSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schultz v William Allen & Ors [2003] QSC 058

PARTIES:

MARGARET ROSE SCHULTZ
(Plaintiff)
v
WILLIAM STEPHEN ALLEN, ALFRED KENNAUGH, ZUILL WREN (now PRENTIS), OWEN PRENTIS, GORDON KENNETH MALCOLM, JOHN HARDY, BERNARD KIOTKA, ROBERT BOLAND, DENNIS MUNT Sued on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all the other members of the unincorporated association known as the RETURNED SERVICE LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND BRANCH) ATHERTON SUB-BRANCH
(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

84 of 1996

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury – Liability and Quantum

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATES:

26 March 2002; 20 May 2002; 20 June 2002; 29 July 2002; 2 September 2002; 6 September, 2002; 12 February 2003; 19 February 2003.

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,087,856.85.

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

J R Baulch SC with G J Houston, for the plaintiff
J R Webb for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Lilley Grose & Long for the plaintiff
Pinder Gandini for the defendants

The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury which she alleges resulted from falls which she suffered at the premises of the Returned Services League of Australia (Queensland Branch) Atherton Sub-Branch, at Atherton in the State of Queensland.

The defendants at all material times were members of the executive committee of the sub-branch which owned the subject premises and thereon conducted the activities of the association. The rights and responsibilities of the sub-branch are set out in the Rules and By-Laws of the Queensland Branch of the Returned Services Leagues of Australia.[1] Various activities within the sub-branch were undertaken by committees such as the Social and Recreation Committee. There was also a group known as the Women’s Auxiliary which was also provided for under the Rules and By-laws.[2] The Women’s Auxiliary was at all times under the control and guidance of the sub-branch.[3] The level of control of the Women’s Auxiliary by the sub-branch is further illustrated in tendered documents which show that the executive committee set out the conditions of the operation of the kitchen by the Women’s Auxiliary and which indicates the way in which requests for equipment were dealt with.[4] Although the Women’s Auxiliary was a separate group, I am satisfied that it was at all times accountable to the executive committee of the sub-branch and that it operated under the control and direction of that committee. Also I am satisfied that the sub-branch, as owner and occupier of the premises, was responsible for the condition of the premises at all material times.
[1]Ex 4 – Rule 74 at p 22
[2]Ex 4 – p 41
[3]Ex 4 – p 41 Para 4
[4]See ex 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13

The plaintiff was a volunteer worker for the defendant. She was at the material time President of the Women’s Auxiliary. In August 1990, as appears from exhibit 7, the Women’s Auxiliary took over the catering operations at the defendant’s premises. This included catering for RSL club…

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 Schultz v William Allen

Details

AGLC: Schultz v William Allen [2003] QSC 58
Case: [2003] QSC 58
Decision Date: 12 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schultz v William Allen was a case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which involved a dispute over unpaid wages and entitlements. The plaintiff, Schultz, alleged that he was owed wages and entitlements by the defendant, William Allen, who was his former employer. Schultz claimed that he had not been paid for overtime worked and had not been reimbursed for expenses incurred during business trips.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was indeed owed the amounts claimed and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The legal issues included the interpretation of the relevant employment contract, the calculation of the unpaid wages and entitlements, and the assessment of any applicable penalties or interest.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the sum of $1,087,856.85. The court held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish that he was owed the amounts claimed and that the defendant had breached the terms of the employment contract. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid amounts, calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of termination of employment until the date of judgment. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the judgment, including interest, within 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,087,856.85.

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:	Schultz v William Allen & Ors [2003] QSC 058
PARTIES:	MARGARET ROSE SCHULTZ (Plaintiff) v WILLIAM STEPHEN ALLEN, ALFRED KENNAUGH, ZUILL WREN (now PRENTIS), OWEN PRENTIS, GORDON KENNETH MALCOLM, JOHN HARDY, BERNARD KIOTKA, ROBERT BOLAND, DENNIS MUNT Sued on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all the other members of the unincorporated association known as the RETURNED SERVICE LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND BRANCH) ATHERTON SUB-BRANCH (Defendants)
FILE NO/S:	84 of 1996
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Personal Injury – Liability and Quantum
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	12 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATES:	26 March 2002; 20 May 2002; 20 June 2002; 29 July 2002; 2 September 2002; 6 September, 2002; 12 February 2003; 19 February 2003.
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,087,856.85.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:	J R Baulch SC with G J Houston, for the plaintiff J R Webb for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Lilley Grose & Long for the plaintiff Pinder Gandini for the defendants