The v AEG Ogden (Convex) Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 35 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The v AEG Ogden (Convex) Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 51

PARTIES:

Yong-Lip The
(Plaintiff)

V

AEG Ogden (Convex) Pty Ltd
(formerly known as Convex (Qld) Pty Ltd)
ACN 058298374
(Defendant)

And

Informa Australia Pty Ltd
ACN 086268313
(Third party)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3198 of 2008

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2011

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

2.   Reserve the issue of costs, subject to submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

LIABILITY AND DAMAGES – fall in car park in convention centre in an area used for docking vehicles – duty of care on occupier towards entrants concerned with exhibiting materials in exhibition areas – whether Civil Liability Act 2003 applies

Civil Liability Act 2003, ss 4(1), 5(b), 6A, 13, 23, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2003, Schedule 4, Schedule 6A
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003
Wrongs Act 1936 (South Australia)

Ellis v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) [2008] QCA 388
Lusk & Anor v Sapwell [2011] QCA 59
Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75; (2005) 80 ALJR 341
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 QdR 519
Thompson v Woolworths (Q’land) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Warrener v Australian Capital Territory [2004] ACTCA 9
Wellington Shire Council v Steedman [2003] VSCA 115

COUNSEL:

M Kehoe for the plaintiff

C Harding for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Rostron Carlyle Solicitors for the plaintiff

Cantwell Lawyers for the defendants

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff claims against the defendant damages for negligence arising from personal injury suffered in a fall at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre at approximately 4.00pm on 4 July 2005 when the plaintiff sustained, directly, an injury to his left ankle.

  1. The claim made by the defendant against the third party was settled prior to this trial beginning.  Furthermore, on 19 July 2010, Irwin DCJ ordered that certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim be struck out, removing all references to all claims for breach of contract and breach of statutory duty. 

  1. The trial took place before me on 4 April 2001 when all evidence was led and oral submissions, with some written supplement, were presented.  I rejected an application for telephone only evidence as to liability to be led from a person at a remote location who had no access to any of the relevant liability documentation, and who had attached an ‘illegible’ photograph to his statement.  But the parties agreed that a further witness, who was also, originally, part of that application, have his evidence accepted by tender of a statement of his, subject to redaction.  Consequently, a copy of an original typewritten statement signed by Jonathon Gamez on 2 May 2007 became Exhibit 5.  Paragraphs 1, 2 and 8 to 15 (inclusive) were the only ones to be admitted into evidence.

  1. Thus, besides the issues of negligence and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The v AEG Ogden (Convex) 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
[2011] QDC 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, who is unnamed in the documents, filed a claim against AEG Ogden (Convex) Pty Ltd, a company involved in managing convention centres. The plaintiff alleged that they suffered injuries after falling in a car park area of the convention centre, which was designated for the docking of vehicles. The plaintiff sought damages, arguing that the defendant, as the occupier, owed a duty of care towards entrants such as the plaintiff who were there to exhibit materials in the exhibition areas.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances and, if so, whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to limit or exclude that duty. The court had to determine the scope of the defendant's liability and whether the statutory provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 applied to shield the defendant from liability.

The court found that the car park where the plaintiff fell was primarily intended for the docking of vehicles and not for exhibition activities. Therefore, the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to the fall that occurred in that specific area. The court further held that the statutory provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 did not apply to exclude or limit the defendant's liability in these circumstances, as the plaintiff's injury was directly related to the docking of vehicles, which was not an activity associated with the exhibition areas. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court reserved the issue of costs, subject to any submissions from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

2. Reserve the issue of costs, subject to submissions.

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.