Legal Research
Cases
Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd

Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd

Case [2006] QCA 88 24 March 2006

Claim and Delay in Making Claim

Procedural & Remedial

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Res Judicata

Workers' Compensation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 88

PARTIES:

PRISCILLA ROBERTA WILKINSON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STEVENSAM PTY LTD ACN 091 891 235
(first defendant/first applicant)
SAMANTHA ANN DICK and MARTIN LEONG
(second defendant/second applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10045 of 2005
DC No 68 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for leave granted1.

Appeal allowed2.

Declaration made below set aside3.

Respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis4.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - CLAIM AND DELAY IN MAKING CLAIM - GENERALLY - where respondent claims to have suffered psychiatric anxiety and depression resulting from physical and verbal abuse suffered in her employment - where dispute over when injury-related event "happened" - where legislative amendments led to dispute over which legislative regime applied to the respondent's injury and claim - where learned District Court judge acted without "formal evidence" - where learned District Court judge declared respondent's action to have been "validly commenced" - where applicants sought leave to appeal pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) - whether leave should be granted and whether declaration of learned District Court judge should be set aside

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 262, s 280, s 280A,
s 305, s 532, s 588

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334, applied
Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, applied
Rich v CGU Insurance Ltd [2005] HCA 16; (2005) 79 ALJR 856, cited
Rigney v Littlehales & Ors [2005] QCA 252; Appeal No 11267 of 2004, 22 July 2005, considered
Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] QCA 470; Appeal No 5639 of 2005, 16 December 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

D O J North SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the applicants
J W Lee for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: By claim and statement of claim filed in the District Court on 11 August 2004 the respondent commenced a proceeding seeking to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of negligence and/or breach of contract of employment naming the applicants, her employers at the relevant time, as defendants. The proceeding was one which could only lawfully be commenced after there had been compliance with relevant provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) (“the Act”). WorkCover, who effectively have the conduct…

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 Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L [2006] QCA 88
Case: [2006] QCA 88
Decision Date: 24 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd involved a dispute over workers' compensation for psychiatric injury claimed by the respondent, Ms Wilkinson, who alleged she suffered anxiety and depression due to physical and verbal abuse during her employment. The primary issue was when the injury-related event occurred and which legislative regime applied to the respondent's injury and claim due to legislative amendments. This led to a dispute over whether the respondent's claim was validly commenced. The applicants sought leave to appeal the decision of the District Court judge, who had declared the respondent's action validly commenced without formal evidence. The applicants argued that the District Court judge's decision should be set aside.

The legal issues centred on the interpretation of relevant legislative provisions and whether the District Court judge's decision to declare the respondent's action validly commenced was correct. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the legislative amendments applied to the respondent's claim and if the judge's decision was made without proper evidence. The applicants argued that the respondent's claim was time-barred and that the judge acted without formal evidence, which was necessary for a valid declaration. The court also had to consider the applicable legal principles and precedents, such as the requirement for formal evidence and the proper application of legislative provisions.

The court, after careful consideration of the arguments and relevant case law, found that the District Court judge's decision was flawed due to the lack of formal evidence and misinterpretation of the legislative provisions. The court held that the legislative amendments did not apply to the respondent's claim, and the claim was indeed time-barred. Consequently, the court granted the applicants' leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The declaration made by the District Court judge was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the appeal. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and correctly applying legislative provisions in workers' compensation claims.

The final orders of the court were to grant the applicants' leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the District Court judge's declaration, and order the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the appeal. This outcome reinforced the necessity of formal evidence in judicial decisions and the accurate interpretation and application of legislative provisions in workers' compensation matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave granted1.

Appeal allowed2.

Declaration made below set aside3.

Respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis4.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L [2006] QCA 88

Most Recent Citation

Dowd v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 228

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Ritchie v Ikea Pty Limited
[2018] QDC 143 Para 1

…rson is a worker or someone is an employer, to be conclusive of such issues in a claim for damages. [6] Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88 at [51].…
Stankovic v SS Family Pty Ltd
[2018] QDC 54 Para 8

…t would leave very little apart from breach of duty and assessment of damages to be resolved at trial. He relied on Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 88 at [51] for the proposition that the injury must be established in proceedings for damages.…
Ley v Woolworths Limited
[2013] QSC 59 Para 1

…ies when they engage in the process mandated by Parts 5 and 6 of Chapter 5 of the WCRA.[54] [54] Consider further Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88.…
Muckermann v Skilled Group Limited
[2013] QSC 51 Para 1

…on by members of the Court of Appeal in the context of a dispute under the legislative predecessor of the WCRA in Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88. [83] For example he has elected in this action not to allege that his psyche illness was “secondary” to (that is caused by) the pain and suffering o…
Maguire v Racing Queensland Limited
[2012] QSC 219 Para 1

…s v Newcastle City Council (2006) 226 CLR 256 at [46]; Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 at [24]; Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L and Ors [2006] QCA 88 at [60]; Bolton Properties P/L v J K Investments (Australia) P/L [2009] QCA 135 at [28]; Jiona Investments Pty Ltd and Ors v Medihelp General Practice Pty Ltd…
Scott v Q Catering Ltd
[2011] QSC 326 Para 1

…oup Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 133; Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 482; Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88 and Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 396. In particular, the respondents argued that any waiver of compliance by the insurer had to occur befor…
Greengrass v Margach Builders Pty Ltd
[2010] QDC 396 Para 1

…t sentence in that paragraph, referring to Roberts v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 482 and Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88 at para 43. She noted that although those cases were decided under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 , and not under the WCRA, the reasoning therein…
Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd
[2009] QSC 41 Para 1

…proceeding already commenced.[13] [13] Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2006] 1 QdR 482; Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88 at para 43. These cases were decided on the former WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), but the reasoning in them is equally applicable to the Workers’ C…
Dowd v Swift Australia Pty Ltd
[2008] QCA 228

…ustralia Ltd v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55, followed Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 88, distinguished COUNSEL: J A Griffin QC for the applicant A J Moon for the respondent SOLICITORS: A K Compensation Lawyers for the applicant Connolly Suthers for the respondent…
Phipps v Australian Leisure Group
[2006] QSC 327 Para 1

…e Court of Appeal in Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2005] QCA 470 (16 December 2005), and Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QCA 88 (24 March 2006) held that failure to comply with the mandated procedures rendered any proceedings commenced in a Court void. The Court of Appeal also…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
[2005] QCA 470 Para 1

…rise proceedings which have been commenced and where the limitation period has expired. [3] Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] QCA 470 at [31]. [4][2005] QCA 470 at [28] - [38].…
Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd & Ors
[2005] QDC 339 Para 1

…1 July 2001, it was not competent for WorkCover to issue damages certificates to claimants in respect of injuries which post-date 1 July 2001.[2] [1][2005] QDC 339 at [9]. [2][2005] QDC 339 at [19] and [24].…
Rigney v Littlehales
[2005] QCA 252 Para 1

…er 1 July 2001. And all this has happened without a sufficient factual basis, and, indeed, without the evidence necessary to establish the facts. [16][2005] QCA 252 at [13]. [17][2005] QDC 339 at [34].…
Brew v Followmont Transport P/L
[2005] QCA 245 Para 1

…d to the extent that it exists at all.[24] [24]Cf Wilson v Austral Motors (Qld) Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 774 at 782; Brew v Followmont Transport Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 245 at [37] - [39]; Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] QCA 470 at [20].…
Rich v CGU Insurance Ltd
[2005] HCA 16

…v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334, applied Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, applied Rich v CGU Insurance Ltd [2005] HCA 16; (2005) 79 ALJR 856, cited Rigney v Littlehales & Ors [2005] QCA 252; Appeal No 11267 of 2004, 22 July 2005, considered Roberts v Australia and New Z…
Pugin v WorkCover Queensland
[2005] QCA 66 Para 1

…kCover on behalf of the defendants was responsible.[25] [25] Brew v Followmont Transport Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 245 at [37]; Pugin v WorkCover Queensland [2005] QCA 66 at [19] - [21].…
Agar v Hyde
[2000] HCA 41

…ever, the general principle is that issues raised in proceedings are to be determined in a summary way only in the clearest of cases. In Agar v Hyde ((2000) 201 CLR 552 at 575 - 576 [57]), Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said: 'Ordinarily, a party is not to be denied the opportunity to place his or her case befo…
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd
[1999] HCA 9

…, s 280, s 280A, s 305, s 532, s 588 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334, applied Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, applied Rich v CGU Insurance Ltd [2005] HCA 16; (2005) 79 ALJR 856, cited Rigney v Litt…
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission
[1992] HCA 10

…uld be set aside District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 262, s 280, s 280A, s 305, s 532, s 588 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334, applied Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, applied…
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)
[1964] HCA 69

…ious ways ( Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 per Dixon J; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130 per Barwick CJ), but all of the verbal formulae which have been used are intended to describe a high degree of certainty about the ultimate ou…
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners
[1949] HCA 1

…ng advantage of the usual interlocutory processes. The test to be applied has been expressed in various ways ( Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 per Dixon J; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130 per Barwick CJ), but all of the verbal fo…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
118(3) 2 mentions (from Para 2)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld)
262 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
4 1 mention (from Para 1)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
WorkCover Queensland Amendment Act 2001 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 88
PARTIES:	PRISCILLA ROBERTA WILKINSON (plaintiff/respondent) v STEVENSAM PTY LTD ACN 091 891 235 (first defendant/first applicant) SAMANTHA ANN DICK and MARTIN LEONG (second defendant/second applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10045 of 2005 DC No 68 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	24 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave granted1. Appeal allowed2. Declaration made below set aside3. Respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis4.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - CLAIM AND DELAY IN MAKING CLAIM - GENERALLY - where respondent claims to have suffered psychiatric anxiety and depression resulting from physical and verbal abuse suffered in her employment - where dispute over when injury-related event "happened" - where legislative amendments led to dispute over which legislative regime applied to the respondent's injury and claim - where learned District Court judge acted without "formal evidence" - where learned District Court judge declared respondent's action to have been "validly commenced" - where applicants sought leave to appeal pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) - whether leave should be granted and whether declaration of learned District Court judge should be set aside District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 262, s 280, s 280A, s 305, s 532, s 588 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors [1999] HCA 9; (1999) 198 CLR 334, applied Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, applied Rich v CGU Insurance Ltd [2005] HCA 16; (2005) 79 ALJR 856, cited Rigney v Littlehales & Ors [2005] QCA 252; Appeal No 11267 of 2004, 22 July 2005, considered Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] QCA 470; Appeal No 5639 of 2005, 16 December 2005, cited
COUNSEL:	D O J North SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the applicants J W Lee for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the applicants Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent