Thiess Pty Ltd v Krobath - [2019] QCA 151

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thiess Pty Ltd v Krobath [2019] QCA 151

PARTIES:

THIESS PTY LTD
ACN 010 221 486
(appellant)
v
OSKAR FRANZ KROBATH
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 557 of 2019
SC No 916 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2018] QSC 309 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Applegarth and Bradley JJ

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKER – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES – where, after a three-day trial, the respondent was awarded damages for a personal injury sustained in the course of his employment with the appellant – where the appellant contends that the learned primary judge erred in the assessment of past and future economic loss, and related calculations, by failing to take into account an alleged failure by the respondent to maintain his qualifications and an alleged reluctance to accept short-term employment – whether the respondent failed to maintain qualifications that would affect his employability – whether the respondent demonstrated a reluctance to accept certain roles that would affect his employability at the relevant time – whether the learned primary judge erred in the assessment of damages

COUNSEL:

G W Diehm QC, with S Deaves, for the appellant
C C Heyworth-Smith QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hall & Wilcox for the appellant
Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Bradley J and the orders proposed by his Honour.
APPLEGARTH J: I also agree with the reasons for judgment of Bradley J and the orders proposed by his Honour.
BRADLEY J: This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages to the respondent for a personal injury he sustained in the course of his employment with the appellant at the Burton Downs Coal Mine.
Background
The respondent was first offered employment with the appellant in 2008, in the form of a traineeship. He was then 45 years of age. He and his wife had been married for 19 years, and had three children aged 11 to 14. In order to be ready to take up the traineeship, the respondent surrendered the lease of the kitchen at the Broken River Mountain Resort, where he operated a business in his former occupation as a chef. However, the appellant withdrew the offer of a traineeship before the respondent was due to commence.
Between October 2008 and September 2010, the respondent worked as a farmhand and as a cane cutter.
On 6 September 2010, the appellant engaged the respondent as a trainee operator at Burton Downs. He completed his traineeship on 11 September 2011. He was then…

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 Thiess Pty Ltd v Krobath

Details

AGLC: Thiess Pty Ltd v Krobath [2019] QCA 151
Case: [2019] QCA 151
Decision Date: 2 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thiess Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal against a decision awarding damages to the respondent, Krobath, for personal injuries sustained during his employment. The trial court found in favour of Krobath after a three-day trial, and Thiess now challenges the assessment of past and future economic loss, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider the respondent's failure to maintain his qualifications and a reluctance to accept short-term employment. The primary legal issues revolve around whether the respondent's alleged failure to maintain qualifications and reluctance to accept certain roles impacted his employability and, consequently, the quantum of damages awarded.

The court examined the evidence regarding Krobath's qualifications and employment history. It concluded that the respondent did not fail to maintain his qualifications in a manner that would significantly impact his employability. The court also found that Krobath did not demonstrate an unreasonable reluctance to accept certain roles at the relevant time. The trial judge's assessment of damages was deemed appropriate, given the evidence presented. The court held that the trial judge was correct in his approach to the measure and remoteness of damages, finding no error in the assessment of past and future economic loss.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. The reasoning and outcome affirm the trial judge's evaluation of the respondent's qualifications and employment history, supporting the awarded damages as just and reasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Thiess Pty Ltd v Krobath [2019] QCA 151
PARTIES:	THIESS PTY LTD ACN 010 221 486 (appellant) v OSKAR FRANZ KROBATH (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 557 of 2019 SC No 916 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2018] QSC 309 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	2 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 July 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Applegarth and Bradley JJ
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – RE-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKER – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES – where, after a three-day trial, the respondent was awarded damages for a personal injury sustained in the course of his employment with the appellant – where the appellant contends that the learned primary judge erred in the assessment of past and future economic loss, and related calculations, by failing to take into account an alleged failure by the respondent to maintain his qualifications and an alleged reluctance to accept short-term employment – whether the respondent failed to maintain qualifications that would affect his employability – whether the respondent demonstrated a reluctance to accept certain roles that would affect his employability at the relevant time – whether the learned primary judge erred in the assessment of damages
COUNSEL:	G W Diehm QC, with S Deaves, for the appellant C C Heyworth-Smith QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hall & Wilcox for the appellant Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the respondent