Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd - [2020] QSC 266

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 266

PARTIES:

LARRY ANDREW SILVER

(plaintiff)

v

AMACA PTY LTD (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd)

(ACN 000 035 512)

(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS No 9955 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:
Orders made 28 August 2020

Reasons delivered 1 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 August 2020

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1. Application dismissed.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

JURY – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant – where the plaintiff elected trial by jury when commencing proceedings – where the defendant applied under s 65A(a) of the Jury Act 1995 for an order that the trial proceed without a jury – where the defendant argued that three sets of documents that are to be put into evidence will be lengthy – where orders were given on 28 August 2020 dismissing the application with reasons to follow – whether the trial “requires a prolonged examination of records”

Jury Act 1995, s 65A

King v Amaca Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 433, cited

COUNSEL:
G O’Driscoll for the applicant/defendant

M Grant-Taylor QC and D Cormack for the respondent/plaintiff

SOLICITORS:
Holman Webb for the applicant/defendant

Bennett & Philp for the respondent/plaintiff

On 14 September 2018, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant. Mr Silver claims that he contracted malignant pleural mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos dust and fibres when he renovated part of his home and, in doing so, disturbed asbestos products made by the defendant.
When the plaintiff commenced proceedings, he elected trial by jury.
The defendant applied under s 65A of the Jury Act 1995 for an order that the trial proceed without a jury. On 28 August 2020, I dismissed that application. These are my reasons for doing so.
The defendant confined its application to s 65A(a) which provides:
“A court may order a civil trial without a jury if the trial—
(a)requires a prolonged examination of records …”
The basis for the defendant’s argument on this point is that there are three sets of documents which will be lengthy.
The first set was called the “Reid documents”. It bore that name because the documents consisted of the notes and observations of Andrew Reid who, in 1912, had bought the business which later became known as James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd. Those documents are relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing that the defendant was aware of the serious problems which can be caused by exposure to asbestos. There are some 1,135 pages of documents in this set. The mere fact that a large number of documents might be required to be placed before a jury is insufficient to attract…

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 Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 266
Case: [2020] QSC 266
Decision Date: 1 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained due to the defendant's alleged negligence. The plaintiff commenced the action and opted for a trial by jury. Subsequently, the defendant applied under section 65A(a) of the Jury Act 1995, requesting an order to proceed with the trial without a jury. The defendant's application hinged on the assertion that the three sets of documents to be presented as evidence would be lengthy, potentially necessitating a prolonged examination of records.

The court had to determine whether the trial necessitated a prolonged examination of records, which would render a jury trial inappropriate. The court considered the nature and complexity of the documents, the extent to which they would require detailed analysis, and the implications for the jury's ability to effectively deliberate on the evidence. The court found that the documents, while voluminous, did not inherently require a prolonged examination that would be beyond the capabilities of a jury to assess. The court concluded that the trial did not require a prolonged examination of records.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application for a trial without a jury. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that the nature of the evidence does not unduly burden the jury's function in assessing the facts of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.

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:	Silver v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 266
PARTIES:	LARRY ANDREW SILVER (plaintiff) v AMACA PTY LTD (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) (ACN 000 035 512) (defendant)
FILE NO:	BS No 9955 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	Orders made 28 August 2020 Reasons delivered 1 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 August 2020
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	1. Application dismissed. 2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	JURY – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant – where the plaintiff elected trial by jury when commencing proceedings – where the defendant applied under s 65A(a) of the Jury Act 1995 for an order that the trial proceed without a jury – where the defendant argued that three sets of documents that are to be put into evidence will be lengthy – where orders were given on 28 August 2020 dismissing the application with reasons to follow – whether the trial “requires a prolonged examination of records” Jury Act 1995, s 65A King v Amaca Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 433, cited
COUNSEL:	G O’Driscoll for the applicant/defendant M Grant-Taylor QC and D Cormack for the respondent/plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	Holman Webb for the applicant/defendant Bennett & Philp for the respondent/plaintiff