Thomas v State of Queensland - [2025] QSC 242

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thomas v State of Queensland [2025] QSC 242

PARTIES:

TINU THOMAS

(plaintiff)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 3202 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 August 2025

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   The plaintiff’s application filed on 11 August 2025 is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to rule 469 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the signature of the plaintiff on the request for trial date is dispensed with.

3.   The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the defendant’s application.

4.   There be no order as to costs for the plaintiff’s application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DETENTION, INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION – INSPECTION OF PROPERTY – where the plaintiff has a personal injuries claim against the State of Queensland as her employer at a hospital – where plaintiff alleges her injuries occurred in the course of adjusting a Mayo stand – where the plaintiff alleges a failure to provide safe plant and equipment or a failure to inspect or audit or maintain the equipment – where the plaintiff has not yet identified the Mayo stand alleged to have caused the injury – where the plaintiff brings an application for her and her ergonomics expert to enter and inspect the premises at level four of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital for the purposes of inspecting a Mayo stand pursuant to rule 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the court should exercise its discretion to order inspection

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – SETTING DOWN FOR TRIAL – where the plaintiff has a personal injuries claim against the State of Queensland as her employer at a hospital – where the pleadings are complete, non-party disclosure has occurred and the parties participated in an unsuccessful mediation – where the defendant sent a request for a trial date – where the plaintiff stated the case was not ready for trial as a further liability report and ergonomist’s report were to be obtained – where the defendant has filed an application seeking an order that the plaintiff’s signature on the request for trial date be dispensed with – whether the court should exercise its discretion to dispense of the signature of the plaintiff on the request for trial date

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 5, r 250, r 469

Aged & Disabled Persons Hostel & Welfare Association v Beenleigh Bowls & Recreation Club Inc [2022] QSC 71, considered

Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 345; [2002] QSC 42, cited

COUNSEL:

L R Smith for the plaintiff

K Thomson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Littles Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant

Ms Thomas is a registered nurse who, in June 2020, was employed at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital…

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 Thomas v State of Queensland 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: [2025] QSC 242
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thomas v State of Queensland, the plaintiff brought forth a personal injury claim against the State of Queensland, asserting that her injuries occurred in the course of her employment at a hospital while adjusting a Mayo stand. The plaintiff alleged that her injuries were due to either a failure to provide safe equipment, a lack of inspection, audit, or maintenance of the equipment, or both. The plaintiff sought an inspection of the premises to identify the specific Mayo stand that caused her injuries, under rule 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court had to determine whether to exercise its discretion to order the inspection. Additionally, the plaintiff had not yet identified the specific Mayo stand alleged to have caused the injury.

The court examined the plaintiff's application for an inspection and the defendant's application to dispense with the plaintiff's signature on the request for a trial date. The pleadings were complete, non-party disclosure had occurred, and an unsuccessful mediation had taken place. The defendant had requested a trial date, while the plaintiff contended that the case was not ready for trial due to pending liability and ergonomist reports. The court needed to decide whether to exercise its discretion to dispense with the plaintiff's signature on the request for a trial date.

In its decision, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an inspection of the premises, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a compelling need for such an inspection. The court held that the plaintiff had not yet identified the specific Mayo stand alleged to have caused the injury, and therefore, the inspection was not necessary at that stage. The court also exercised its discretion under rule 469 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to dispense with the plaintiff's signature on the request for a trial date, given the completed pleadings, non-party disclosure, and unsuccessful mediation. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application, while there was no order as to costs for the plaintiff's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s application filed on 11 August 2025 is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to rule 469 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the signature of the plaintiff on the request for trial date is dispensed with.

3. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the defendant’s application.

4. There be no order as to costs for the plaintiff’s application.

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:	Thomas v State of Queensland [2025] QSC 242
PARTIES:	TINU THOMAS (plaintiff) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 3202 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 August 2025
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDERS:	1. The plaintiff’s application filed on 11 August 2025 is dismissed. 2. Pursuant to rule 469 of the **Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the signature of the plaintiff on the request for trial date is dispensed with. 3. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the defendant’s application. 4. There be no order as to costs for the plaintiff’s application.**
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DETENTION, INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION – INSPECTION OF PROPERTY – where the plaintiff has a personal injuries claim against the State of Queensland as her employer at a hospital – where plaintiff alleges her injuries occurred in the course of adjusting a Mayo stand – where the plaintiff alleges a failure to provide safe plant and equipment or a failure to inspect or audit or maintain the equipment – where the plaintiff has not yet identified the Mayo stand alleged to have caused the injury – where the plaintiff brings an application for her and her ergonomics expert to enter and inspect the premises at level four of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital for the purposes of inspecting a Mayo stand pursuant to rule 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the court should exercise its discretion to order inspection PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – SETTING DOWN FOR TRIAL – where the plaintiff has a personal injuries claim against the State of Queensland as her employer at a hospital – where the pleadings are complete, non-party disclosure has occurred and the parties participated in an unsuccessful mediation – where the defendant sent a request for a trial date – where the plaintiff stated the case was not ready for trial as a further liability report and ergonomist’s report were to be obtained – where the defendant has filed an application seeking an order that the plaintiff’s signature on the request for trial date be dispensed with – whether the court should exercise its discretion to dispense of the signature of the plaintiff on the request for trial date Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 5, r 250, r 469 Aged & Disabled Persons Hostel & Welfare Association v Beenleigh Bowls & Recreation Club Inc [2022] QSC 71, considered Evans Deakin Pty Ltd v Orekinetics Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 345; [2002] QSC 42, cited
COUNSEL:	L R Smith for the plaintiff K Thomson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Littles Lawyers for the plaintiff McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant