Solomona v No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd - [2016] QDC 289

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Solomona v No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 289

PARTIES:

SORAYA KARINE SABINA SOLOMONA

(plaintiff)

v

NO 1 RIVERSIDE QUAY PTY LTD (ACN 006 639 07)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

27/14 (Southport Registry)

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

25, 26 and 27 October 2016

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

JUDGMENT & ORDER:

1. Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

2. Each party has leave to file, and serve, submissions on costs, if any, by 4pm on 25 November 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

Employment – injury to employee – whether duty of care statutorily breached

LEGISLATION CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

CASES CITED:

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Part 8 of Chapter 5, ss 305B, 305C, 305D, 305E, 306, 306O, 306N, 306J

Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 sch 8, Part 2, Division 1, s 2, sch 8, Part 2, Division 2, s 8, sch 9

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 s 37A

Glass, McHugh and Douglas, The Liability of Employers, 2^nd ed, The Law book Company Ltd, 1979.

Benic v New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039

Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39

Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48

Erickson v Bagley [2015] VSCA 220

Fox v State of Queensland [2016] QDC 146

Gratrax Pty Ltd v TD & C Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 385

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

O’Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330

Rudd v Starbucks Coffee Company (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 232

South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Ltd v Gazis [2016] NSWCA 8

State of NSW v Mikhael [2012] NSWCA 338

Stitz v Manpower Services & Anor [2011] QSC 268

Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] QSC 79

Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd v Larkin [2013] QCA 281

Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537

Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422

Vincent v WoolworthsLtd [2016] NSWCA 40

Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196

COUNSEL:

R D Green for the Plaintiff

K S Howe for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

CMC Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy for the Defendant

Introduction

Should an employer be held legally liable for a back injury suffered by its employee in circumstances where the employee, in the process of lifting baskets containing ice cream products (within a thigh high, flat top ice cream freezer with sliding panels for easy access by the general public) located in a customer area of a service station, meets resistance to lifting because an edge of such a basket had become frozen (to some extent), when a general Targeted Replenishment card had been provided to all employees which, indirectly, drew attention to avoiding “sudden or jerky movements”? That is an over simplification of the full circumstances involved;…

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 Solomona v No 1 Riverside Quay 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: [2016] QDC 289
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Solomona v No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Solomona, claimed compensation for injuries sustained while working on a vessel owned by the defendant, No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd. Solomona alleged that the injuries were the result of a breach of statutory duty by the defendant, who was his employer at the time. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant breached its statutory duty of care owed to Solomona under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Solomona argued that the defendant failed to provide a safe working environment, leading to his injuries. The defendant contended that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees and that Solomona's injuries were caused by his own negligence.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the statutory obligations under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It found that the defendant had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, as required by the statute. The court held that the defendant's failure to provide a safe working environment amounted to a breach of its statutory duty of care. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Solomona, finding that the defendant was liable for the injuries sustained by Solomona due to the breach of statutory duty.

The court ordered No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd to compensate Solomona for the injuries and related damages. The specific amount of compensation was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of employers adhering to statutory obligations to maintain a safe working environment for their employees.

Orders