SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Watkin v GRM International P/L [2006] QCA 382
PARTIES:
ANTHONY VAUGHN WATKIN
(applicant/respondent)
v
GRM INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 010 020 201
(respondent/appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3815 of 2006
SC No 1341 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
29 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 September 2006
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Keane JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
Appeal allowed1.
Orders below are set aside and the respondent's application is dismissed with costs2.
CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND THIRD PARTIES - respondent was resident of Queensland employed by appellant - contract of employment governed by laws of Queensland - respondent's services were provided by the appellant to prison in the Solomon Islands - respondent suffered personal injuries in the course of employment - application for compensation rejected - respondent sought to claim for damages pursuant to Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) - whether the respondent's substantive rights against the appellant, if any, have survived the operation of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6(2)
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 10, s 115, s 237Glenco Manufacturing P/L v Ferrari & Anor [2005] QSC 005; [2005] 2 Qd R 129, cited
Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors P/L & Anor [2001] QCA 223; [2002] 2 Qd R 157, considered
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] QCA 48; Appeal No 7137 of 2005, 3 March 2006, cited
Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2005] QCA 470; Appeal No 5639 of 2005, 16 December 2005, citedCOUNSEL:
D O J North SC, with S S Monks, for the appellant
R J Lynch for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Minter Ellison - Gold Coast for the appellant
Gouldson Legal for the respondent
McMURDO P: I agree with Keane JA.
KEANE JA: The respondent was a resident of Queensland who was employed by the appellant as a prison officer. The respondent's contract of employment with the appellant was governed by the laws of Queensland. The respondent's services were provided by the appellant to the Rove Central Prison in the Solomon Islands. In the course of this employment, the respondent suffered personal injuries.
The respondent made an application for workers' compensation benefits ("compensation") under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ("the WCRA"). That claim was rejected by his employer's insurer on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to be paid compensation because his injury was suffered in another country and Queensland was not his principal place of employment. The rejection was upheld by Q-Comp (the Workers' Compensation Regulatory Authority).
The respondent then sought to claim for damages for breach of duty against the appellant in respect of his injuries. The respondent asserted this claim…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Watkin v GRM International 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] QCA 382
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory framework provided by both the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). It considered the relevant sections of these Acts and relevant case law, including Hawthorne v Thiess Contractors P/L & Anor and Glenco Manufacturing P/L v Ferrari & Anor. The court found that under the Workers' Compensation Act, the respondent's employment was covered by a statutory scheme that provided exclusive remedies against the employer for personal injuries suffered in the course of employment. This statutory scheme effectively extinguished any common law claims the respondent might have had against the appellant.
Consequently, the court held that the respondent's substantive rights against the appellant had been extinguished by the operation of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The appeal was allowed, the orders below were set aside, and the respondent's application was dismissed with costs. The court's decision reinforced the principle that the statutory workers' compensation scheme provides the exclusive remedy for personal injuries suffered in the course of employment in Queensland.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed1.
Orders below are set aside and the respondent's application is dismissed with costs2.
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.