Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust - [2009] VSCA 224

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 3848 of 2008

ADRIENNE TURNER	Appellant
	v
VICTORIAN ARTS CENTRE TRUST	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY, MANDIE JJA and BEACH AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	24 September 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	2 October 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2009] VSCA 224
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust (Orders after trial by judge and jury, County Court of Victoria, Judge O’Neill, 22 August 2008)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Negligence – Jury trial – Evidence – Collateral evidence rule – Evidence not collateral – Application to discharge jury – Matter corrected by direction from trial judge – Expert evidence – Not a matter requiring expertise – Evidence excluded – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Appellant

Mr A G Uren QC with

Mr A D B Ingram

Clark Toop and Taylor

For the Respondent

Mr J Ruskin QC with
Mr S A O’Meara

Thomson Playford Cutlers Lawyers

ASHLEY JA
MANDIE JA
BEACH AJA:

Introduction

This case concerns alleged exposures to psychosocial stressors and workplace bullying. Ms Adrienne Turner (‘the appellant’) was employed by the Victorian Arts Centre Trust (‘the respondent’) between August 1985 and 25 January 2001. The appellant alleges that during the latter part of her employment as a ticketing officer - specifically, between 20 October 1999 and 25 January 2001 - she was exposed to psychosocial stressors, and more particularly workplace bullying behaviour on the part of the ticketing services manager of the respondent, Mr Dominic Holden.[1] She claims that, as a result of such exposure, she sustained psychiatric injuries.[2]
[1]See paragraph two of the agreed summary of proceedings, facts and issues. However, we note that whilst the main thrust of the appellant’s case concerned the activities of Mr Holden, the pleadings and evidence encompassed other actions in respect of which the appellant made complaint. So, for example, some conduct of Ms Jenny Lacey (whose position was box office co-ordinator) was also in issue.
[2]The injuries claimed included ‘major depression and anxiety’, ‘aggravation and exacerbation of hypertension’, ‘panic disorder with agoraphobia’ and ‘post traumatic stress disorder’. ‘Obesity’ was also claimed as an injury.

The appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the County Court claiming damages in respect of her injuries. The claim was put in negligence and in breach of contract. On 22 August 2008, after a two and a half week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the respondent. Judgment was entered for the respondent in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

The appellant now appeals to this Court. She seeks to have the judgment entered against her set aside and the proceeding remitted to the County Court for retrial.

The appellant’s complaints can be summarised as follows:

(a) The judge permitted a breach of the collateral evidence rule in relation to evidence given by a former fellow employee of the appellant, Ms Ann O’Hanlon.[3]
[3]Grounds 1-5.

(b) The judge failed to discharge the jury after what is said to have been ‘the…

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 Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust 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: [2009] VSCA 224
Decision Date: 2 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in a fall at the defendant's premises. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises. The defendant contested the claim, denying negligence and asserting that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of their own actions.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically whether the collateral evidence rule applied, and whether the trial judge correctly excluded expert evidence on matters not requiring expertise. The court had to determine whether the jury trial was appropriately directed and if the trial judge's intervention was justified. Additionally, the court assessed whether the exclusion of the expert evidence was proper and if the appeal against the trial judge's decisions should be upheld.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was not collateral and thus admissible. The court also determined that the trial judge's intervention in directing the jury was appropriate, correcting any potential misdirection. Furthermore, the court held that the exclusion of the expert evidence was justified as the matters in question did not require expert testimony. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial judge's decisions and the jury's verdict.

Orders