White v Calstores Pty Ltd - [2006] QCA 535

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

White v Calstores P/L [2006] QCA 535

PARTIES:

SONJA WHITE
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
CALSTORES PTY LTD ACN 000 175 342
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5418 of 2006
DC No 46 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal allowed1.

Judgment in favour of the respondent set aside2.

Respondent's action against the appellant dismissed3.

Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal4.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - GENERALLY - appellant employed respondent as console operator at service station and convenience store - armed robbers held up shop while respondent was working - respondent suffered psychiatric illness as result of robbery - respondent brought action for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty - respondent successful before learned trial judge - learned trial judge found need for permanent security guard - learned trial judge did not find that arrangements for random checks by security guards were not reasonably adequate - whether the learned trial judge's judgment in favour of the respondent can be sustained

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 28

Coca-Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer [2006] NSWCA 45, cited
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491, cited

COUNSEL:

D V C McMeekin SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the appellant
J W Lee for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant
Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Keane JA.

KEANE JA: At about 8.00 pm on the night of 27 October 1998, armed robbers held up a service station and convenience store ("the shop") operated by the appellant at Kingston. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a console operator at the shop. The respondent suffered a psychiatric illness as a result of the robbery.

The respondent brought an action for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty against the appellant. The respondent's claim was upheld by the learned trial judge on the basis that the appellant had failed to employ a full-time security guard for the night shift at the shop.

In this Court, the appellant contended that it was not open to the learned trial judge to uphold the respondent's claim on this basis, there being no pleaded case, or evidence, to support the conclusions that a reasonable or practicable response to the risk of injury to the respondent required the provision of a full-time security guard and that the employment of such a guard would have prevented the respondent's injury.

I will summarise the respondent's case and the learned trial judge's findings before proceeding to a discussion of the appellant's contentions.

The respondent's case at trial

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.

Continue reading White v Calstores Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: White v Calstores P/L [2006] QCA 535
Case: [2006] QCA 535
Decision Date: 12 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, an employee of the appellant, was the operator of the petrol pump and attendant at the appellant's convenience store. During the course of his employment, the respondent was subjected to an armed robbery, which resulted in him suffering a psychiatric illness. He subsequently brought an action against the appellant for damages, claiming that the appellant was negligent in not providing adequate security measures and breached statutory obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld). The learned trial judge found in favour of the respondent, concluding that the appellant's measures were inadequate and that a permanent security guard was required. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge's judgment could not be sustained. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge's judgment in favour of the respondent could be sustained, specifically in relation to the adequacy of the security measures implemented by the appellant and whether a permanent security guard was necessary.

The court examined the evidence and the trial judge's findings to determine whether the appellant's security measures were adequate and whether a permanent security guard was necessary. The court noted that the trial judge found that the arrangements for random checks by security guards were not reasonably adequate, but the arrangements for random checks were not found to be inadequate. The court held that the trial judge's judgment in favour of the respondent could not be sustained, as the trial judge's findings were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and that the arrangements for random checks by security guards were adequate. The court also held that the evidence did not support a finding that a permanent security guard was necessary.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed, the judgment in favour of the respondent was set aside, and the respondent's action against the appellant was dismissed. The court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that a plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to support their claims in a negligence action and that the trial judge's findings are supported by the evidence. It also serves as a reminder to employers to take reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and to consider the adequacy of their security measures in preventing armed robberies.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed1.

Judgment in favour of the respondent set aside2.

Respondent's action against the appellant dismissed3.

Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal4.

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:	White v Calstores P/L [2006] QCA 535
PARTIES:	SONJA WHITE (plaintiff/respondent) v CALSTORES PTY LTD ACN 000 175 342 (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5418 of 2006 DC No 46 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	12 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal allowed1. Judgment in favour of the respondent set aside2. Respondent's action against the appellant dismissed3. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal4.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - GENERALLY - appellant employed respondent as console operator at service station and convenience store - armed robbers held up shop while respondent was working - respondent suffered psychiatric illness as result of robbery - respondent brought action for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty - respondent successful before learned trial judge - learned trial judge found need for permanent security guard - learned trial judge did not find that arrangements for random checks by security guards were not reasonably adequate - whether the learned trial judge's judgment in favour of the respondent can be sustained Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld), s 28 Coca-Cola Amatil (NSW) Pty Ltd v Pareezer [2006] NSWCA 45, cited Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491, cited
COUNSEL:	D V C McMeekin SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the appellant J W Lee for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent