Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd - [2020] QSC 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 62

PARTIES:

SHERYL TICKNER

(plaintiff/respondent)

v
TEYS AUSTRALIA BILOELA PTY LTD

(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 66 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order (Application): 3 April 2020
Date of Order (Costs): 7 April 2020

Date of Publication of Reasons: 7 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2020

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

Order delivered 3 April 2020:

1. The application is dismissed.

Order delivered 7 April 2020:

2. Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – GENERALLY – construction and interpretation of damages under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - construction and interpretation of s 270 and s 271 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether in determining appropriate court jurisdiction to hear matter the compulsory reduction under s 270 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 is included in ‘damages sought’ under the District Court of Queensland Act 1967

COURTS AND JUDGES – COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO OR FROM HIGHER COURT AND BETWEEN COURTS – TO A LOWER COURT – where application under s 25(2) Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to remit matter to District Court – where District Court has appropriate jurisdiction to hear matter - whether appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of transfer

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 270, s 271
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 25
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 135

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 68

Crown Equipment Pty Ltd v ACN 098 568 702 Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 24, followed
Fechner v Yerkovich [1993] 1 Qd R 249; [1991] QSCFC 118, cited
Franklin v Rabmusk Pty Ltd [1993] 1 Qd R 258; [1991] QSCFC 162, cited
Lausberg v Burns Philp & Co Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 642; [1990] QSCFC 76, cited
Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645; [2000] QCA 113, cited
Perfect v MacDonald & Anor [2012] QSC 11, cited

Platinum Investment Group Pty Ltd v Anderson [2018] 3 Qd R 305; [2018] QSC 2, followed

COUNSEL:

A M Arnold for the plaintiff/respondent
G C O’Driscoll for the defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Rees R & Sydney Jones for the plaintiff/respondent
BT Lawyers for the defendant/applicant

On 20 January 2020 Cheryl Tickner filed a claim in the Supreme Court for “damages for negligence and breach of contract causing personal injury, interest pursuant to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 or alternatively Civil Proceedings Act2011 and costs.” Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim shows a number of heads of damage particularised in tabulated form, culminating in a subtotal of $843,729.75.
Relevantly, paragraph 10 of the statement of claim provides, inter alia:

SUB TOTAL

$843,729.75

Less refund to WorkCover

(185,844.54)

TOTAL

$657,885.21

The statement…

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 Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela 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: [2020] QSC 62
Decision Date: 7 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd involved a claim for workers’ compensation brought by Mr. Tickner against Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute was whether the Supreme Court should remit the matter to the District Court due to the District Court's jurisdiction over claims where the amount of damages sought did not exceed a specified threshold. The issue arose from the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the determination of compensation and the jurisdiction of the courts under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the District Court of Queensland Act 1967.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether the compulsory reduction under section 270 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 should be included in the ‘damages sought’ for the purposes of determining the appropriate court jurisdiction; and secondly, whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to remit the matter to the District Court, given that the District Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the claim. The court had to interpret and apply the statutory provisions in a manner that adhered to legislative intent and jurisdictional requirements.

The court found that the compulsory reduction under section 270 was not to be included in the ‘damages sought’ for the purposes of determining the appropriate court jurisdiction, as it was not intended to be a part of the compensable damages. Consequently, the court concluded that the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. However, the court decided not to exercise its discretion to remit the matter to the District Court, resulting in the dismissal of the application. The court reserved the matter of costs for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order delivered 3 April 2020:

1. The application is dismissed.

Order delivered 7 April 2020:

2. Costs are reserved.

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:	Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 62
PARTIES:	SHERYL TICKNER (plaintiff/respondent) v TEYS AUSTRALIA BILOELA PTY LTD (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 66 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order (Application): 3 April 2020 Date of Order (Costs): 7 April 2020 Date of Publication of Reasons: 7 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	23 March 2020
JUDGE:	Crow J
ORDER:	Order delivered 3 April 2020: 1. The application is dismissed. Order delivered 7 April 2020: 2. Costs are reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS – GENERALLY – construction and interpretation of damages under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - construction and interpretation of s 270 and s 271 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - whether in determining appropriate court jurisdiction to hear matter the compulsory reduction under s 270 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 is included in ‘damages sought’ under the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 COURTS AND JUDGES – COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO OR FROM HIGHER COURT AND BETWEEN COURTS – TO A LOWER COURT – where application under s 25(2) Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to remit matter to District Court – where District Court has appropriate jurisdiction to hear matter - whether appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of transfer Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 270, s 271 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 25 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 135 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 68 Crown Equipment Pty Ltd v ACN 098 568 702 Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 24, followed Fechner v Yerkovich [1993] 1 Qd R 249; [1991] QSCFC 118, cited Franklin v Rabmusk Pty Ltd [1993] 1 Qd R 258; [1991] QSCFC 162, cited Lausberg v Burns Philp & Co Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 642; [1990] QSCFC 76, cited Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645; [2000] QCA 113, cited Perfect v MacDonald & Anor [2012] QSC 11, cited Platinum Investment Group Pty Ltd v Anderson [2018] 3 Qd R 305; [2018] QSC 2, followed
COUNSEL:	A M Arnold for the plaintiff/respondent G C O’Driscoll for the defendant/applicant
SOLICITORS:	Rees R & Sydney Jones for the plaintiff/respondent BT Lawyers for the defendant/applicant

SUB TOTAL	$843,729.75
Less refund to WorkCover	(185,844.54)
TOTAL	$657,885.21