State of Queensland v Munro - [2014] QCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

State of Queensland v Munro [2014] QCA 231

PARTIES:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant)
v
JOAN MUNRO
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1163 of 2014
Appeal No 4335 of 2014
DC No 2326 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 July 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal be refused with costs.

2. The application for leave to appeal against the order made on 17 April 2014 be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – FINDINGS ON ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where the respondent claimed damages for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty – where the primary judge gave judgment for the respondent plaintiff against the applicant defendant in proceedings in the District Court – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the respondent, then a 50 year old registered nurse, was on the third day of an aggressive behaviour management course – where, when attempting a manoeuvre under instruction, the respondent fell and injured her left hand – where the primary judge found that risk could have been minimised by teaching the different parts of the manoeuvre separately before combining them – where the applicant submits that the techniques were split up and taught in different parts separately before they were combined – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant failed to separately train the respondent to perform the parts of the manoeuvre before combining them – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant breached its duty of care to the respondent by failing to provide proper training and instruction

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant contends that there was no evidence that the alternate technique to learning the manoeuvre would have obviated the respondent’s misunderstanding in producing the manoeuvre that resulted in her fall – where causation was not an issue raised at trial – whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on the causation ground when the focus of the argument before the primary judge was whether the applicant’s duty of care had been breached – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the breach of duty caused the respondent’s injury

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – OTHER CASES – where the primary judge relied on expert evidence as to how the course ought to be conducted – where the applicant submits that the expert was not qualified…

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 State of Queensland v Munro 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: [2014] QCA 231
Decision Date: 16 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the State of Queensland versus Munro, the applicant, the State of Queensland, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court, which found the respondent, a 50-year-old registered nurse, was entitled to damages for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty. The incident occurred when the respondent fell and injured her left hand during an aggressive behaviour management course while attempting a manoeuvre under instruction. The primary judge found that the risk could have been minimised by teaching the different parts of the manoeuvre separately before combining them and that the State of Queensland had failed in its duty of care by not providing proper training and instruction.

The legal issues in the appeal centred on whether the primary judge erred in finding that the State of Queensland failed to separately train the respondent to perform the parts of the manoeuvre before combining them, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that the breach of duty caused the respondent's injury. Additionally, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in admitting and relying upon the evidence of an expert who provided opinion evidence regarding how the course ought to be conducted. The applicant also sought leave to appeal against the order regarding costs.

The Court held that the primary judge's findings of fact were not interfered with, and the applicant's submissions on causation were not relevant as this was not the focus of the argument before the primary judge. The Court found that the primary judge had not erred in relying on the expert evidence, despite the applicant's contention regarding the expert's qualifications. The Court also found that it had no power to grant leave to appeal in the costs application, given the operation of section 118B of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld).

Accordingly, the Court refused the application for leave to appeal, and the application for leave to appeal against the costs order was also refused. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the action on the Magistrate's Court scale.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be refused with costs.

2. The application for leave to appeal against the order made on 17 April 2014 be refused.

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:	State of Queensland v Munro [2014] QCA 231
PARTIES:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v JOAN MUNRO (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1163 of 2014 Appeal No 4335 of 2014 DC No 2326 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 July 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Peter Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal be refused with costs. 2. The application for leave to appeal against the order made on 17 April 2014 be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – FINDINGS ON ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where the respondent claimed damages for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty – where the primary judge gave judgment for the respondent plaintiff against the applicant defendant in proceedings in the District Court – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the respondent, then a 50 year old registered nurse, was on the third day of an aggressive behaviour management course – where, when attempting a manoeuvre under instruction, the respondent fell and injured her left hand – where the primary judge found that risk could have been minimised by teaching the different parts of the manoeuvre separately before combining them – where the applicant submits that the techniques were split up and taught in different parts separately before they were combined – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant failed to separately train the respondent to perform the parts of the manoeuvre before combining them – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant breached its duty of care to the respondent by failing to provide proper training and instruction TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – CAUSATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant contends that there was no evidence that the alternate technique to learning the manoeuvre would have obviated the respondent’s misunderstanding in producing the manoeuvre that resulted in her fall – where causation was not an issue raised at trial – whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on the causation ground when the focus of the argument before the primary judge was whether the applicant’s duty of care had been breached – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the breach of duty caused the respondent’s injury EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – OTHER CASES – where the primary judge relied on expert evidence as to how the course ought to be conducted – where the applicant submits that the expert was not qualified…