Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] QSC 219

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 219

PARTIES:

GERARD ROSS WALLACE

(first plaintiff)

SARAH LOUISE WALLACE
(second plaintiff)

v
CAESARSTONE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ABN 45 121 819 976

(first defendant)

SMARTSTONE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ABN 19 148 937 008

(second defendant)

WK MARBLE & GRANITE PTY LTD
ABN 29 074 331 981

(third defendant)

LAMINEX GROUP PTY LIMITED
ABN 98 004 093 092

(fourth defendant)

COSENTINO AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ABN 66 150 158 277

(fifth defendant)

HALIFAX VOGEL GROUP PTY LIMITED
ABN 75 104 808 853

(sixth defendant)

CAESARSTONE LTD

(seventh defendant)

CARSILSTONE PTY LIMITED
ACN 104 148 389

(eighth defendant)

GROUP MANUFACTURING PTY LTD
ABN 73 095 052 341

(ninth defendant)

ACCENT BENCHTOPS PTY LTD
ABN 60 108 354 598

(tenth defendant)

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
ABN 40 577 162 756

(eleventh defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 15527 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2025

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

1.      The signature of each defendant on the Request for Trial Date is dispensed with.

2.      The defendants have leave to deliver a report by Occupational Hygienist, Alan Rogers, by 4.00 pm on 31 October 2025.

3.      The proceedings are placed on the Supervised Case List.

4.      The plaintiffs file and serve written submissions on the question of the costs of the application by 4 pm on 12 September 2025.

5.      The defendants file and serve written submissions on the question of the costs of the application by 4 pm on 19 September 2025.

6.      Any party may file and serve, by 4 pm on 26 September 2025, a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs.

7.      In the event that no notice is filed, the question of costs will be determined on any written submissions received without further oral argument.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – CASE MANAGEMENT – where the first plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his work with engineered stone – where the second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff – where the second plaintiff sues for loss of consortium – where directions were made by the deputy registrar for the preparation of the case – where those directions included the defendants nominating independent medical examination (IME)  panels to the plaintiff – where the defendants neglected to nominate the IME panels – where they failed to do so for some eighteen months – where one of the defendants provided a report of an occupational hygienist – where the plaintiffs responded to that report with a report – where the plaintiffs served a request for trial date – where the defendants refused to sign the request for trial date – where the defendants nominated IME panels – where the defendants complained about the lateness of the report provided by the plaintiffs – whether the defendants’ signatures on the request…

Continue reading Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 219
Case
[2025] QSC 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd involved the first plaintiff suing for damages for personal injuries suffered due to his work with engineered stone, with the second plaintiff, the wife, suing for loss of consortium. The defendants neglected to nominate independent medical examination (IME) panels for some eighteen months, despite directions from the deputy registrar. The defendants later provided an occupational hygienist's report, to which the plaintiffs responded with their own report. The plaintiffs then served a request for a trial date, which the defendants refused to sign, subsequently nominating IME panels and complaining about the lateness of the plaintiffs' report. The court was required to decide whether the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date should be dispensed with, considering the procedural history and the parties' arguments.

The court found the defendants' delay in nominating IME panels and their complaints about the lateness of the plaintiffs' report to be disingenuous, especially given the first plaintiff's life expectancy of 34 and a half years. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court directions and the need for the matter to proceed without further delay. The plaintiffs' urgency in obtaining a damages award for the first plaintiff's treatment and comfort was deemed reasonable. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments about the relative urgency of other engineered stone cases and the fairness of prioritising this case were irrelevant. The court ultimately decided that the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date should be dispensed with, allowing the case to proceed.

The court's orders included dispensing with the defendants' signatures on the request for trial date, allowing the defendants to deliver a report by an occupational hygienist by a specified date, placing the proceedings on the Supervised Case List, and setting timelines for the filing and serving of written submissions on the costs of the application. Any party could file a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs, but if no such notice was filed, the question of costs would be determined based on the written submissions without further oral argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The signature of each defendant on the Request for Trial Date is dispensed with.

2. The defendants have leave to deliver a report by Occupational Hygienist, Alan Rogers, by 4.00 pm on 31 October 2025.

3. The proceedings are placed on the Supervised Case List.

4. The plaintiffs file and serve written submissions on the question of the costs of the application by 4 pm on 12 September 2025.

5. The defendants file and serve written submissions on the question of the costs of the application by 4 pm on 19 September 2025.

6. Any party may file and serve, by 4 pm on 26 September 2025, a notice of intention to make oral submissions on costs.

7. In the event that no notice is filed, the question of costs will be determined on any written submissions received without further oral argument.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

As is common in personal injuries cases generally, and engineered stone cases in particular, expert evidence is relied upon. Rules 429G, 429H and 429I regulate expert evidence. They provide:“429G Expert evidence(1)Subject to subrule (5), the expert may give evidence-in-chief in the proceeding only by a report.(2)The report may be tendered as evidence in the proceeding only if—(a)the report has been disclosed under this part; or(b)the court gives leave.(3)Subject to a direction given under division 2, any party to the proceeding may tender the report as evidence in the proceeding, but only if the party produces the expert for cross-examination, if required.(4)Unless the court orders otherwise, the report may be admitted in evidence in the proceeding only if the report confirms the expert has read, and agrees to be bound by, the code of conduct.(5)The expert may give oral evidence-in-chief in the proceeding only if the court gives leave.(6)Also, unless the court orders otherwise, the expert may give oral evidence in the proceeding only if the court is satisfied the expert has acknowledged, whether in a report prepared in relation to the proceeding or otherwise in relation to the proceeding, that the expert has read, and agrees to be bound by, the code of conduct.429H Requirements for report(1)A report prepared by the expert must be addressed to the court and signed by the expert.(2)The report must include the following information—(a) the expert’s qualifications;(b)all material facts, whether written or oral, on which the report is based;(c)the expert’s reasons for each opinion expressed in the report;(d)references to any literature or other material relied on by the expert to prepare the report;(e)for any inspection, examination or experiment conducted, initiated, or relied on by the expert to prepare the report—(i)a description of what was done; and(ii)whether the inspection, examination or experiment was done by the expert or under the expert’s supervision; and(iii)the name and qualifications of any other person involved; and(iv)the result;(f) if there is a range of opinion on matters dealt with in the report—a summary of the range of opinion, and the reasons why the expert adopted a particular opinion;(g)if the expert believes the report may be incomplete or inaccurate without a qualification—the qualification;(h)a summary of the conclusions reached by the expert;(i)a statement about whether access to any readily ascertainable additional facts would assist the expert in reaching a more reliable conclusion.(3)If the expert believes an opinion expressed in the report is not a concluded opinion, the report must state, where the opinion is expressed, the reason for the expert’s belief.Examples of reasons why an expert may believe an opinion is not a concluded opinion—•insufficient research•insufficient data(4)The expert must confirm in the report that—(a) the expert has read, and agrees to be bound by, the code of conduct; and(b)the factual matters stated in the report are, as far as the expert knows, true; and(c)the expert has made all inquiries considered appropriate; and(d)the opinions stated in the report are genuinely held by the expert; and(e)the report contains reference to all matters the expert considers significant; and(f)the expert understands the expert’s duty to the court and has complied with the duty.429I Disclosure of reportA party intending to rely on a report prepared by the expert must, unless the court orders otherwise, disclose the report as soon as practicable and, in any case—(a)if the party is a plaintiff—within 90 days after the close of pleadings; or(b)if the party is a defendant—within 120 days after the close of pleadings; or(c)if the party is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant—within 90 days after the close of pleadings for the party.”The positions of the respective parties

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Her submissions can be fairly summarised as follows:(a)the matter is not ready for trial;(b)expert evidence is still required by the defendants to defend the proceedings;(c)advice on evidence needs to be obtained;(d)the plaintiffs have only recently filed and served the report of Mr Jennings.(e)the first plaintiff’s life expectancy is some 34 and a half years, such there is no relative urgency to other matters before the courts; and (f)it would be unfair to give this case priority over other engineered stone cases.Consideration It is, in my view, somewhat disingenuous for the defendants to submit that there is no “relative urgency to other matters before the courts” because it is estimated that the first plaintiff’s condition will take 34 and a half years to kill him. The plaintiffs obviously have a desire to obtain a damages award quickly so that money can be utilised towards the treatment and comfort of the first plaintiff during his lifetime. The reference to the “relative urgency” to other engineered stone cases is, in my view, irrelevant; as is the notion of it being unfair to “give [this case] priority” over the other engineered stone matters. During argument this exchange occurred:“HIS HONOUR: You’re relying upon the state of play in relation to all these other silica matters. You’re saying none of those have got trial dates. Why is Mr Wallace concerned about that? He’s a citizen, he comes to Court, he has complied with the rules, why does he have to worry about all of these other matters? What’s that got to do with anything?MS BLATTMAN: Well, because, your Honour, there’s these other matters that have managed in a consistent way with a view that they be prioritised according to both readiness and need. And here comes a matter that in my solicitor’s estimate could take 20 days of court time. Meanwhile, Justice Freeburn is trying to manage a dust list, basically, and this matter is no more deserving in priority than any of those other matters.HIS HONOUR: That might not be Mr Wallace’s view.MS BLATTMAN: It might not be.HIS HONOUR: I don’t understand. He’s a citizen, he’s got rights, he might be right, wrong, or otherwise in relation to his case. He brings it. When he brings it, you don’t apply to have it listed before Justice Freeburn, you just drift on. He prosecutes his claim and now, what, over eighteen months later, you say; ‘hang on, any case management in relation to him now has to be linked to a whole stack of other cases.’ I just don’t see how that can be a relevant consideration.MS BLATTMAN: Well, another way of looking at it, and with respect, the view we would submit is that there is another stack of cases that are submitting to a particular mode of case management which has been set up by the Court, and that this particular case is no different from them and should be managed consistently. And that this is – and I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense at all – would, without reason, put him ahead of all these other matters.HIS HONOUR: Well, because his case is ready.MS BLATTMAN: Well, it’s not ready–HIS HONOUR: Well, no, you’re not ready, they’re ready.”