State of Queensland v Paxton

[1996] QCA 313

COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 313
THOMAS J de JERSEY J DOWSETT J
Appeal No 6534 of 1996

STATE OF QUEENSLAND Appellant (Applicant)

and

KAMALA PAXTON Respondent

(Respondent)

BRISBANE
..DATE 19/08/96
190896 T3/JB M/T COA193/96
THOMAS J: This is an application for leave to appeal
against a decision of a District Court Judge in Chambers.
His Honour refused the defendant's application for further
particulars of the plaintiff's plaint. The plaintiff's
action is one by a schoolteacher suing the State of
Queensland for negligence leading to a condition of stress.

The particulars which were refused were wide-ranging and included a request for particulars of the system which the plaintiff alleged the defendant ought to have instituted in place of the one against which complaint is made.

The learned District Court Judge gave brief reasons and indicated as perhaps the principal point for rejection the circumstance that the application was made rather late and after a tendering of a certificate of readiness for trial on behalf of the plaintiff.

Stress cases are no different to other forms of injury and give the present case no added dimension. The law on particulars appears to be reasonably well settled and I do not think that any important question of law requiring resolution by this Court arises from the present application.

His Honour did not make any overt error on the question of entitlement to particulars of the system that the plaintiff claims to be reasonably open to the defendant to have instituted.

190896 T3/JB M/T COA193/96

It may, I think, be inferred that His Honour probably would have ordered particualrs had the application been made earlier. It is possible that His Honour gave too much weight to the circumstance of the defendant's delay in insisting upon its rights to better particulars. It is also possible that the defendant obscured the meritorious part of its application by pressing for too many oppressive particualrs beyond what would be necessary for a fair trial.

The main point that has been argued by Mr Douglas QC, who led for the applicant, is that there is an important question of jsutice because a fair trial cannot now be had.

I am not satisfied that that is the case. It seems to me that if an unexpected case is made out of a type of system that ought to have been instituted, which the defendant needs time to meet, then the trial Judge may reasonably be expected to see that the defendant receives reasonable accommodation in that regard.

Mr Geraghty, who appeared for the respondent, implied that the plaintiff's case was not heavily dependent upon allegations in relation to system. Against that background the present application reveals, at most, an error on a reasonably well- settled point and there is, in my view, no sufficient reason to fear that the party's final rights are likely to be lost as a result. I would accordingly refuse leave.

de JERSEY J: I agree.
190896 T3/JB M/T COA193/96

DOWSETT J: I also agree.

THOMAS J: The order is application refused.

-----