SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Serra v Couran Cove Management P/L [2012] QSC 130
PARTIES:
ALBERTO ANTONIO SERRA
(plaintiff)
v
COURAN COVE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
ABN 83 102 820 253
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS7387/09
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
31 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5, 6, 7, 8 December 2011
JUDGE:
Douglas J
ORDER:
Action dismissed. Judgment for the defendant.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – where the plaintiff worked as an electrical mechanic for the defendant – where the plaintiff was attacked by a co-employee and suffered injuries from the attack – where the plaintiff and the co-employee had been involved in a confrontation shortly prior to the attack – where the co-employee was said to have tampered with a glass washer such that the plaintiff suffered an electric shock – where the co-employee was said to have caused password protection on the work computer rendering the plaintiff unable to carry out his work – where the co-employee wrote a racially discriminatory note providing instructions for the plaintiff in relation to a particular piece of work – where the co-employee was reprimanded for the racially discriminatory note – whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable – whether the defendant breached the duty it owed to the plaintiff by failing to investigate, reprimand or discipline the co-employee – whether causation established
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48 referred
Antoniak v The Commonwealth (1962) 4 FLR 454 referred
Gittani Stone Pty Ltd v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355 referred
Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366 cited
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Company Ltd [1957] 2 QB 348 referred
Lusk v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59 referred
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422 citedCOUNSEL:
S D Anderson for the plaintiff
R C Morton for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant
Douglas J: Mr Alberto Serra, the plaintiff, worked as an electrical mechanic at Couran Cove Resort between 21 May 2007 and 13 July 2007. On the latter date he was attacked by a co-employee, a Mr Peter Markan, who was another electrician at the Resort. He suffered injuries from the attack and his damages have been agreed by the parties at $200,000 including interest and clear of any refunds to WorkCover Qld.
His argument supporting his claim for damages is that his employer, the defendant, should have dismissed Mr Markan before 13 July 2007, with the effect that he was no longer present at the Resort by that date, or have reprimanded or counselled him before then because of his earlier conduct. Had the defendant done that then the plaintiff contends that his injuries would not have occurred. His case is that the defendant was negligent and in breach of its employment contract with…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Serra v Couran Cove Management 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QSC 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the employer could have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm from the co-employee's actions, and if so, whether the employer breached its duty by not investigating or taking disciplinary action. The court examined the prior incidents, including the co-employee tampering with equipment, causing an electric shock, obstructing work by tampering with computer access, and writing a racially discriminatory note. The court assessed if these incidents warranted a further investigation and appropriate action to prevent foreseeable harm.
The court found that while the employer was aware of some of the co-employee's actions, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the employer could have reasonably foreseen the specific attack that resulted in Serra's injuries. The court also concluded that the employer's response to the known incidents was not negligent. The court determined that Serra had not established that the employer breached a duty of care or that such a breach caused his injuries. As a result, the action was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's action was dismissed and judgment was given in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's claim for damages was therefore rejected.
Orders
Orders of the court
Action dismissed. Judgment for the defendant.
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.